• 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!

"Public Health Crisis" is the road to Dictatorship

His policies are the same as every other country on the planet. The whole planet did not conspire to make Trump look bad. He did that all by himself.

Every other country advised their population to

1. Wear no mask.
2. Wear one mask.
3. Wear Two masks.

Interesting bit of insanity sweeping the planet. Is it not?
 
What is that reason? I'm trying to make the connection.
There are circumstances which require increased regulation and restriction of freedoms.

you had said: “Public Health Crises will never be used to exert overreach type control of people's lives and removal of rights by the government.”

This is not unlike a particularly busy and dangerous intersection getting a traffic light which is then strictly enforced. It would be odd if someone argued that just the fact that pedestrians tend to get run over in that intersection is being used to “exert overreach and control of peoples lives and removal of rights by the government” by putting up these oppressive traffic lights and enforcing them strictly, wouldn’t it?

Your protests against precautions during a deadly global pandemic seem to be similar.
 
Every other country advised their population to

1. Wear no mask.
2. Wear one mask.
3. Wear Two masks.

Interesting bit of insanity sweeping the planet. Is it not?
Are you saying there are countries in which no precautions were taken and everyone was left free to do as they like?
 
What on earth are you so afraid of that you need your gunz? Are you part of a organized and trained militia, or do you expet us to ignore that phrase in the 2nd?

Nope. Just an old man who knows that in a fight with a young man, I'm going to lose.

If it comes down to a choice between letting an intruder injure my wife in any way, no matter how slight, or killing the SOB before he has the chance to do so, it requires about a fraction of a second for me to decide.

The SOB leaves in a body bag and when the cops arrive to fill out their report, I honestly report that I felt my life was in danger.

Would you prefer that you or you loved ones were the ones to be removed in a body bag?
 
Nope. Just an old man who knows that in a fight with a young man, I'm going to lose.

If it comes down to a choice between letting an intruder injure my wife in any way, no matter how slight, or killing the SOB before he has the chance to do so, it requires about a fraction of a second for me to decide.

The SOB leaves in a body bag and when the cops arrive to fill out their report, I honestly report that I felt my life was in danger.

Would you prefer that you or you loved ones were the ones to be removed in a body bag?
Sure. But all you need to be able to do that is a small handgun. That’s why the rest of us gets so puzzled when there’s such passionate defense of military style weapons for private ownership. I mean some of these weapons are big enough to fight off an entire invading platoon.
 
Sure. But all you need to be able to do that is a small handgun. That’s why the rest of us gets so puzzled when there’s such passionate defense of military style weapons for private ownership. I mean some of these weapons are big enough to fight off an entire invading platoon.
Well that's because you think the only use is fighting off an invading platoon. Which by the way its certainly not.
The small handgun is used to commit far and away more crime..
Yet you freak out about the scary looking rifle.
 
Well that's because you think the only use is fighting off an invading platoon. Which by the way its certainly not.
The small handgun is used to commit far and away more crime..
Yet you freak out about the scary looking rifle.
If you are saying they are used for hunting or target practice, there are places and special licenses through which such things can be done. Just leaving it free and open to the public at large to use however and whenever is an invitation to disaster.

It's a little like how we have driving licenses for cars, and all sorts of specifications on what makes a car street legal, and where you can drive them, etc.... If you want something beyond that, there are special licenses and places you can go to do such things, like racetracks. From what I understand, for example, target practice with these larger guns is a very popular pastime in Germany. But not anyone can just buy them and haul them around anywhere they like over there.

In fact, it's not just cars or guns- ALL potentially dangerous equipment have all sorts of common sense regulations on them. This is not a slippery slope to tyranny, it's just common sense. Not sure why people think leaving THIS particular potentially dangerous equipment free and unregulated is not a problem.
 
Nope. Just an old man who knows that in a fight with a young man, I'm going to lose.

If it comes down to a choice between letting an intruder injure my wife in any way, no matter how slight, or killing the SOB before he has the chance to do so, it requires about a fraction of a second for me to decide.

The SOB leaves in a body bag and when the cops arrive to fill out their report, I honestly report that I felt my life was in danger.

Would you prefer that you or you loved ones were the ones to be removed in a body bag?
More guns don't make society safer. The idea of a good guy with a gun has proven to be a myth so we need to get rid of the guns so we all do not need to be armed to be safe. Your idea is not what the Framers had in mind when the 2nd was written. We are now to the point where we are having multiple mass shootings in a week, so more guns haven't made the country safer but instead the opposite has occurred. There are also many cops who have no business on the force because of their lack of intelligence and their abusive personalities.

If you don't believe me then read the word of conservative SCOTUS justice Warren Burger.

Annotation

Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Abstract

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood apart from the purpose, the setting, and the objectives of the draftsmen. At the time of the Bill of Rights, people were apprehensive about the new national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. It guarantees, "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." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago. Americans have a right to defend their homes, and nothing should undermine this right; nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting anymore than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing. Neither does anyone question the right of citizens to keep and own an automobile. Yet there is no strong interest by the citizenry in questioning the power of the State to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. It is even more desirable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage.

 
There are circumstances which require increased regulation and restriction of freedoms.

you had said: “Public Health Crises will never be used to exert overreach type control of people's lives and removal of rights by the government.”

This is not unlike a particularly busy and dangerous intersection getting a traffic light which is then strictly enforced. It would be odd if someone argued that just the fact that pedestrians tend to get run over in that intersection is being used to “exert overreach and control of peoples lives and removal of rights by the government” by putting up these oppressive traffic lights and enforcing them strictly, wouldn’t it?

Your protests against precautions during a deadly global pandemic seem to be similar.

The word "never" in the words you quote seems to reverse the thought I was probably trying to convey.

(Upon further review, I see that you changed the sentence by omitting my first clause asking you to demonstrate "why".)

The use of traffic lights when placed at appropriate points in cities is usually a good thing.

However, placing traffic lights in places to regulate traffic that does not exist is insane.

Demanding that lepers announce they are unclean so they can be avoided may have been a good idea in 200 BC. Same as not eating pork.

Closing schools when the virus seemed prone to pass over children was an inappropriate exercise of government power. By the Fall of 2020, the statistical tendencies of the virus were well understood.

Continuing to pay the teachers, most of whom were statistically unlikely to succumb to Covid, when they should have been working, was not wise.

You very likely have a place in your house like a kitchen sink or a bathroom that is a higher traffic area than other places in your house.

Do you have traffic lights at those points inside your house?
 
Are you saying there are countries in which no precautions were taken and everyone was left free to do as they like?

I was questioning whether or not every other country had a revered health professional that was virtually worshipped by their intelligentsia that contradicted himself with almost every comment.

As I have said repeatedly in this forum, Dr. Fauci was every side of every issue throughout this entire crisis.

Of course, the most dangerous thing any person can do is to stand on a straight line between Fauci and a microphone.
 
Sure. But all you need to be able to do that is a small handgun. That’s why the rest of us gets so puzzled when there’s such passionate defense of military style weapons for private ownership. I mean some of these weapons are big enough to fight off an entire invading platoon.

Mine is an AR-15 style "long gun" that is a single shot with a clip. It's actually an SR-556.

The caliber is just a tad greater that a .22, but the muzzle velocity is pretty high. It looks like a military weapon. I had a toy Thompson Sub Machine gun as a child. It LOOKED like a military weapon.

It is VERY comfortable to hold and aim. It's very light weight and actually pretty small.

I am by no means an expert marksman. Using a hand gun, hitting the target would very likely would likely be low. With a rifle, at the range, I can hit the area inside the circle very regularly.

A rifle seems like it would more easy to aim. Having 30 chances to hit the target raises the chances that I'll find my mark.

Out of curiosity, do you have some supernatural ability to you are using that can inform me of when intruders might intrude and exactly what the number of intruders will be on the day and time you specify?

It might help me to prepare for the occasion. Especially if there is a whole platoon. The wife would probably make some snacks.
 
More guns don't make society safer. The idea of a good guy with a gun has proven to be a myth so we need to get rid of the guns so we all do not need to be armed to be safe. Your idea is not what the Framers had in mind when the 2nd was written. We are now to the point where we are having multiple mass shootings in a week, so more guns haven't made the country safer but instead the opposite has occurred. There are also many cops who have no business on the force because of their lack of intelligence and their abusive personalities.

If you don't believe me then read the word of conservative SCOTUS justice Warren Burger.




I have been wondering about the Second Amendment advice that a militia is needed to protect a free STATE.

THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is intended to limit the power of the Federal Government and to assure the freedom of the people and the various STATES protecting them FROM the power of the USA.

IS THERE ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THE WORD "STATE" IS USED AND IT DOES NOT REFERENCE OR MORE OF THE VARIOUS STATES?

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was an actual Continental Army. It was THIS army that was intended to protect the COUNTRY.

Many have theorized that the gathering of minds to create our country and Constitution was a pretty smart bunch- one of the most gifted and genius level in the history of mankind taken as a group organized at a single point.

What are the chances that this particular choice of this particular word was a mistake that departed from their actual intent(s)?

To me, it seems VERY likely that the Framers were intending the right to bear arms as the final line of defense by "A FREE STATE" literally against the FEDERAL government by states and probably against States by the People.

"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."

The Second Amendment does not reference the United States or the Congress or any group of states. Like the Tenth Amendment, it references the "state".

It SEEMS like any individual state was a seen as a component to the United States and the preservation of each state's integrity and identity was a pretty important idea to the Framers.
 
I have been wondering about the Second Amendment advice that a militia is needed to protect a free STATE.

THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is intended to limit the power of the Federal Government and to assure the freedom of the people and the various STATES protecting them FROM the power of the USA.

IS THERE ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THE WORD "STATE" IS USED AND IT DOES NOT REFERENCE OR MORE OF THE VARIOUS STATES?

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was an actual Continental Army. It was THIS army that was intended to protect the COUNTRY.

Many have theorized that the gathering of minds to create our country and Constitution was a pretty smart bunch- one of the most gifted and genius level in the history of mankind taken as a group organized at a single point.

What are the chances that this particular choice of this particular word was a mistake that departed from their actual intent(s)?

To me, it seems VERY likely that the Framers were intending the right to bear arms as the final line of defense by "A FREE STATE" literally against the FEDERAL government by states and probably against States by the People.

"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."

The Second Amendment does not reference the United States or the Congress or any group of states. Like the Tenth Amendment, it references the "state".

It SEEMS like any individual state was a seen as a component to the United States and the preservation of each state's integrity and identity was a pretty important idea to the Framers.
You are reading and understanding the US Constitution backward. The frames replaced the previous Articles of Confederation, which placed the majority of the power in the individual 13+ states because it was unworkable and didn't allow the federal government to function with the US Constitution that placed the dominant power in the federal government. the result of the Civil war only put more power in the hands of the federal government. When the framers mentioned the state that they're referring to the government and almost always the federal government. The Supremacy clause(article 6, paragraph 2) only makes this idea more obvious.

The framers opposed the idea of a standing professional army because of what we now understand as the military-industrial complex, so what they had in mind when the 2nd Amdnement was written was the creation of the National Guard to defend the US, which was supplemented and trained by a professional officer corps at the federal level. They were trained and organized citizen-soldiers from the federal level, much in the same way as Switzerland or the US National Guard who take part in USArmy boot camp and then 2-3 weeks a year of training and other activities.

They would not have supported the current reading of the 2nd, especially after the Heller decision. The idea of groups or individual untrained and unsupervised violent yahoos roaming the streets with weapons would be very opposed and anathema to what was supposed to occur.
 
You are reading and understanding the US Constitution backward. The frames replaced the previous Articles of Confederation, which placed the majority of the power in the individual 13+ states because it was unworkable and didn't allow the federal government to function with the US Constitution that placed the dominant power in the federal government. the result of the Civil war only put more power in the hands of the federal government. When the framers mentioned the state that they're referring to the government and almost always the federal government. The Supremacy clause(article 6, paragraph 2) only makes this idea more obvious.

The framers opposed the idea of a standing professional army because of what we now understand as the military-industrial complex, so what they had in mind when the 2nd Amdnement was written was the creation of the National Guard to defend the US, which was supplemented and trained by a professional officer corps at the federal level. They were trained and organized citizen-soldiers from the federal level, much in the same way as Switzerland or the US National Guard who take part in USArmy boot camp and then 2-3 weeks a year of training and other activities.

They would not have supported the current reading of the 2nd, especially after the Heller decision. The idea of groups or individual untrained and unsupervised violent yahoos roaming the streets with weapons would be very opposed and anathema to what was supposed to occur.

I'm glad that you mention the Supremacy Clause. It was written using these words:

<snip>

Text[edit]​

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.[7]
<snip>

In this example that you so wisely call up, the recognition of the various sates is, once again, made clear. If the Framers were citing the USA in this reference and in every other reference i can find in the Constitution, they clearly and specifically use the words "United States". When they are discussing the rights of any of the individual states, they use a form of the word "state".

In the Second Amendment, they use the word "state" in their description as a "Free State". They COULD have used the words "The United States", but they chose to use the words "Free State".

At the time that the Constitutional Convention was being held, the Standing Army already existed and continued to exist all the way through our history to today. It was pretty small and weak at times, but it was still there.


Again: The Framers were pretty smart guys. I'm guessing that they wrote what they meant to write and intended the words to say what the words say.

They could have inserted the words "United States" into the Second Amendment, but they refrained from doing so. The question is only "Why", not "If".
 
Nope. Just an old man who knows that in a fight with a young man, I'm going to lose.

If it comes down to a choice between letting an intruder injure my wife in any way, no matter how slight, or killing the SOB before he has the chance to do so, it requires about a fraction of a second for me to decide.

The SOB leaves in a body bag and when the cops arrive to fill out their report, I honestly report that I felt my life was in danger.

Would you prefer that you or you loved ones were the ones to be removed in a body bag?
I have lived many, many decades and not once have I even thought about an intruder coming in to injure me or my family and removed in a body bag. I feel sorry for you and people like you who live lives of fear. There's a whole world out there for you to enjoy and live in and you don't need a gun, much less several guns, to do so. Try it, if you're able. You'll like it, I guarantee.
 
Really not surprising. We all just obediently abandoned our jobs, put on masks, took children out of schools and gave up every right and privilege we ever enjoyed.


Those in the Government covet power. They saw that a "Public Health Crisis" works to make us just give up our rights and wait for someone else to give them back to us.

Those in government have decided that they like withholding our rights. They NEVER want to give them back. NOW EVERYTHING IS A "PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS".

SO FAR, RACISM AND GUN CONTROL HAVE JOINED THE ROSTER OF "PUBLIC HEALTH CRISES". All OTHER rights? Just a matter of time.

It requires no paranoia to understand what's being done either by or on behalf of the Dictatorial Communist Dementia victim in the White House. All that is required is to listen to what the Administration is saying and doing. Lawless power grabs.



Not just Biden.

The CDC has weighed in on "gun control" too.


"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." --Joseph Biden.

Just like his namesake
.Stalin_A.jpeg

Socialism (creeping or otherwise) is all about control.

Lenin.jpeg
People have to be true denialists to remain blind to whats happening. Our Founders warned about all this, especially the curse of pure democracy which is where we are heading.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." (H. L. Mencken.)


"Never let a crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

And rest assured, the swamp is not letting it go to waste.
 
I have lived many, many decades and not once have I even thought about an intruder coming in to injure me or my family and removed in a body bag. I feel sorry for you and people like you who live lives of fear. There's a whole world out there for you to enjoy and live in and you don't need a gun, much less several guns, to do so. Try it, if you're able. You'll like it, I guarantee.
And some of us enjoy trips to the range to practice our God given rights to self protection. Libs call themselves "pro-choice" but their whole being is devoted to eliminating choices. All left wing advocated politics revolves around that very premise

***
No one EVER "needs a gun" .....until you Do. And criminals know that. As John Lott (previously a liberal) studies show, violent crimes are more prevalent where gun laws (liberal areas) are most strict
 

Public Health Crisis" is the road to Dictatorship​


This latest public health crisis allowed government to justify the single greatest abuse of power in US history and most people cheered. If you questioned this abuse, you were considered the bad guy.
 

Public Health Crisis" is the road to Dictatorship​


This latest public health crisis allowed government to justify the single greatest abuse of power in US history and most people cheered. If you questioned this abuse, you were considered the bad guy.
If the government had kept hands off and not stepped in, using the best technology and science available at the time to slow the pandemic, you would have been the first anti-government ignoramus in line to screech about the criminal behavior of the government letting people die.
 
I have lived many, many decades and not once have I even thought about an intruder coming in to injure me or my family and removed in a body bag. I feel sorry for you and people like you who live lives of fear. There's a whole world out there for you to enjoy and live in and you don't need a gun, much less several guns, to do so. Try it, if you're able. You'll like it, I guarantee.

I don't look forward in fear. I look around with awareness. This will help me to avoid looking back in anger.

 
Not just Biden.

The CDC has weighed in on "gun control" too.


"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." --Joseph Biden.

Just like his namesake
.View attachment 67336344

Socialism (creeping or otherwise) is all about control.

View attachment 67336345
People have to be true denialists to remain blind to whats happening. Our Founders warned about all this, especially the curse of pure democracy which is where we are heading.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." (H. L. Mencken.)


"Never let a crisis go to waste" - Rahm Emanuel

And rest assured, the swamp is not letting it go to waste.

Excellent consolidation of thoughts that form the foundation of today's Democrat-Socialist Party!
 
Back
Top Bottom