Politics New World Order?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Jade Falcon said:
I mean....I guess for me it depends. I never vote for someone who's pro-gun control; who has anything less than a "B" rating from the NRA. It's a principle I'm simply not willing to compromise on, because you can tell a lot about a person's character based on how they perceive this Civil Right.

And if they don't respect that Civil Right....what else don't they respect?

So, for me, as long as the Dwayne Johnson respects the 2nd Amendment as the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, and he gets an endorsement from the NRA, then I'll vote for him. I don't even give a shit if he's a complete and total Liberal about anything else...I can deal with it. I may groan about it, but I can live with it.
Click to expand...
But it's ok to challenge the 1st ammendment in your first 4 days in office? Not sure I get your willful neglect of one ammendment over another.
 
theprunetang said:
But it's ok to challenge the 1st ammendment in your first 4 days in office? Not sure I get your willful neglect of one ammendment over another.
Click to expand...

Huh? Who's challenging the 1st Amendment?

What are you talking about?
 
Jade Falcon said:
Huh? Who's challenging the 1st Amendment?

What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Trump and his team fighting against the press. That is covered under the first ammendment. It's really simple. I find it deplorable.
 
theprunetang said:
I'm talking about Trump and his team fighting against the press. That is covered under the first ammendment. It's really simple. I find it deplorable.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus, stop getting emotional.

Firstly, just in case you've been living under a rock...the press, and indeed the majority of the MSM, hasn't exactly been unbiased and fair in their reporting of Trump. This is common knowledge, even among most devout Liberals. The MSM have obscured facts, cherry-picked his speeches, made baseless assumptions about the meanings of his words, and flat-out lied at times. Again: this is common knowledge.

Secondly, they aren't fighting them. The Trump administration is showing their disdain to CNN, and denying them access to the White House. That's not "fighting against the 1st Amendment", despite what you want to believe.

When Trump gets around to shutting down peaceful protests and declaring martial law against anyone who marches in protest, then you can get back to me about violating the 1st Amendment.

And when the press is ready to be impartial, factual, and unbiased, then they can come out of their time out. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
 
Jade Falcon said:
When Trump gets around to shutting down peaceful protests and declaring martial law against anyone who marches in protest, then you can get back to me about violating the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
What would be the point? You'll find a way to rationalize it as not real.

Cuz, guess what? They're trying it:
[URL='https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/']Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest[/URL]
Oh, but that can't be true, can it? Because it's being reported by the Trump-hating media. Funny how every totalitarian regime starts by undermining the press. Sheer coincidence that in the US it's the first time that the honest government is just pointing out how dishonest the media is.
 
Jade Falcon said:
And when the press is ready to be impartial, factual, and unbiased, then they can come out of their time out. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Click to expand...
How would you know if they had? God would whisper in your ear?
 
Rastapopoulos said:
What would be the point? You'll find a way to rationalize it as not real.

Cuz, guess what? They're trying it:
Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest
Oh, but that can't be true, can it? Because it's being reported by the Trump-hating media. Funny how every totalitarian regime starts by undermining the press. Sheer coincidence that in the US it's the first time that the honest government is just pointing out how dishonest the media is.
Click to expand...

Nice try, Rasta, but breaking the law, putting others in danger, blocking traffic, and destroying property is not a "peaceful protest". And that is what the Trump administration is aiming at.

I am not fooled by your attempt to bring emotion into an argument involving rational logic and reason. They aren't aiming this legislation at people who get a permit to peacefully demonstrate. They are aiming this at the Darwin Winners who block traffic and cause chaos. And you know that.
 
1ijxno.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1ijxno.jpg
    1ijxno.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 35
Jade Falcon said:
I mean....I guess for me it depends. I never vote for someone who's pro-gun control; who has anything less than a "B" rating from the NRA. It's a principle I'm simply not willing to compromise on, because you can tell a lot about a person's character based on how they perceive this Civil Right.

And if they don't respect that Civil Right....what else don't they respect?

So, for me, as long as the Dwayne Johnson respects the 2nd Amendment as the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, and he gets an endorsement from the NRA, then I'll vote for him. I don't even give a shit if he's a complete and total Liberal about anything else...I can deal with it. I may groan about it, but I can live with it.
Click to expand...

I am not pro gun control. I want to make that clear from the get go, but I think you are being fairly narrow minded with this stance. First It should be acknowledged that at the time these rights were put down on paper and made law, we didn't have any such thing as automatic weapons.

As much as our constitution was written to be able to contend with times beyond its own generation, it is STILL somewhat archaic in certain aspects and no longer represents the actual world we live in today.
300 years can change ALOT of things.. just read a history book about life 300 years ago.

As the world evolves, so should its rules and regulations to help better serve the continual human progress.
 
I have never understood this logic. We didn't have cell phones when the right to privacy was put down, therefore the government can spy on our phone calls.

I'm not taking this to any extreme. Just pointing out the fallacy.
 
Denny Crane said:
I have never understood this logic. We didn't have cell phones when the right to privacy was put down, therefore the government can spy on our phone calls.

I'm not taking this to any extreme. Just pointing out the fallacy.
Click to expand...

That's why they'll have to pry my ray gun from my cold dead hands!

4e2dbf340b9bf4a031f847427b156188.jpg
 
Rastapopoulos said:
What would be the point? You'll find a way to rationalize it as not real.

Cuz, guess what? They're trying it:
Republican Lawmakers in Five States Propose Bills to Criminalize Peaceful Protest
Oh, but that can't be true, can it? Because it's being reported by the Trump-hating media. Funny how every totalitarian regime starts by undermining the press. Sheer coincidence that in the US it's the first time that the honest government is just pointing out how dishonest the media is.
Click to expand...
Didnt hitler takes guns from citizens before he invaded his own lands?
 
Orion Bailey said:
As much as our constitution was written to be able to contend with times beyond its own generation, it is STILL somewhat archaic in certain aspects and no longer represents the actual world we live in today.
Click to expand...

Orion Bailey said:
As the world evolves, so should its rules and regulations to help better serve the continual human progress.
Click to expand...

You have put to word, the reason for the major disagreements we have as a people today.
The Constitution is the foundation of law and governance in our land. It is complete with a procedure for modification when the people agree on a need.
The age of the document is not a valid reason to ignore it. In my view, there is no issue so urgent that it must be dealt with in a way that requires us to ignore an affront to the Constitution and it's procedure for amending the pertinent section. Any change needed will pass the test of the amendment process, or it is evidently not needed in the eyes of a sufficient majority.
 
dviss1 said:
For the next four years you conservatives aren't going to have liberals to blame. The blame for the fucked up shit that's going to happen in the next four years will be placed squarely on the shoulders of your punk ass party. Republicans fucking suck just like Democrats do both of those Institutions should die fiery deaths. That is all at 1:51 a.m.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Right now the President is having to work and protect US without some of his most able advisors and most of his cabinet, because Dems are obstructing just to obstruct, even though they acknowledge they don't have the numbers to prevent confirmations in the long run because, you know, they lost elections on every level from President all the way down to city council members in America's smallest towns.

So anything bad that happens is on the Dems, unless and until they GTFO of the way.
 
Orion Bailey said:
I am not pro gun control. I want to make that clear from the get go, but I think you are being fairly narrow minded with this stance. First It should be acknowledged that at the time these rights were put down on paper and made law, we didn't have any such thing as automatic weapons.

As much as our constitution was written to be able to contend with times beyond its own generation, it is STILL somewhat archaic in certain aspects and no longer represents the actual world we live in today.
300 years can change ALOT of things.. just read a history book about life 300 years ago.

As the world evolves, so should its rules and regulations to help better serve the continual human progress.
Click to expand...

I am NOT narrow-minded on this issue. Quite the contrary, I've studied Firearms and the 2nd Amendment for many years now; from hundreds of different perspectives and experts in the field. I'm quite content in my viewpoint, as well as my knowledge on the subject.

Automatic weapons are already highly controlled by the government, so it's a non-factor except in war.

But I'm sure you already know that.

As the world evolves, so should its rules and regulations to help better serve the continual human progress.
Click to expand...

The argument "in the name of progress" has often been used throughout human history to take away a person's fundamental civil rights.
 
Denny Crane said:
I have never understood this logic. We didn't have cell phones when the right to privacy was put down, therefore the government can spy on our phone calls.

I'm not taking this to any extreme. Just pointing out the fallacy.
Click to expand...
You don't know how right you are about this. I have a friend who works for the air force as a drone pilot. I got him drunk last year when he was visiting, and before he could talk to me about the work he did, he took both of our phones and put them about 100 feet away from us. And I learned some crazy shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top