Democrats = Communists...Change My Mind

[BugI02]

View attachment 74248

 

[JeepHammer]

If you can redefine a term to mean something other than the standard definition by proclaiming that definition "antiquated," thus applying your own definition, then what's the point of discussing anything with you?

Not at all...
I was referring to the blanket statements that "Democrats = Communists", which is patently and utterly false.

I was ATTEMPTING (unsuccessfully) to point out there are socialist contracts everywhere, a modern society can not exist without socialist contracts, which is NOT included in the definition shown.

Also, if you think that anything has been "settled," then you are simply not paying attention.

It's settled until a legal & lawful challenge makes its way through the legal process.
It's settled simply because the supreme Court is the last word on constitutional/legal issues.
That is the entire reason for the judicial branch to exist under the Constitution.

What we have currently is the law of the land.
If *You* don't like that and want to take a different approach from the judicial process, that's simply unconstitutional...

If you don't like the ruling of the supreme court, too bad.

Either you want to be here and live under the Constitution, or you don't, you simply can't have it both ways.

 

[printcraft]

The modern democrat party is the home for communists and socialists. It's a shared ideals thing.

How many socialist republican candidates have there been?

 

[actaeon277]

The modern democrat party is the home for communists and socialists. It's a shared ideals thing.

How many socialist republican candidates have there been?

They're called RHINO

 

[JeepHammer]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention "firearms" at all. I simply says "arms". "Arms" can mean swords, shields, clubs, firearms, cannons, etc., not just firearms. No matter how you want to define "firearms" today, they're still "arms" and as such the right to keep and bear them should be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

There aren't constitutional challenges to swords, clubs, etc.

The EXACT wording is:
"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."

Exactly how many of you are members of the "Militia"?
Which is the recognized "Militia" that has the right ".. to keep and bear arms"?
Where does it say you have a right "..to keep and bear arms" in your homes? vehicles? on your person?, etc...
Where exactly does it address machine guns, cannons, nuclear bombs, etc?

My point is (and I know you didn't miss it) there isn't specific wording, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't address the current national guard, armories, etc.

Plus, the original poster was busy antagonizing Democrats, which many are gun owners...
It's the blanket statement that kicks part of the 30% gun owning minority right out of a second amendment discussion, (which this wasn't intended to be anyway).

These are the challenges that can be made to the second amendment (if people keep acting like idiots) and the division/alienation of an already undersized minority that will have the second amendment revisited, and with more than 2/3 of the population already considering a ban on several types of firearms, a revisit of the 2nd isn't a good idea under current political climate...
Things might not turn out the way *You* think they *Should*.

Since I own NFA firearms I'm a believer that the current system works for LEGAL machine guns, cannons, artillery, etc since so very few are used to murder other citizens...
It's a model for what probably should be considered when addressing firearms ownership, particularly specific types of firearms.
I'm not unwilling to discuss the situation, but considering the forefathers SPECIFICALLY inserted the right to bear arms, I'm not willing to make any knee jerk reaction one way or the other...

Our forefathers couldn't have imagined a bump stock and 100 round magazines, and yet I'm unwilling to make changes unless things are CLEARLY defined well in advance as not to pollute the original INTENT of the forefathers.
I'm also NOT willing to get locked into some bumper sticker dogma since I'm a somewhat rational human being...

I'll discuss it, and ultimately accept or reject with my single vote, but I WILL follow the law of the land, which ever way it comes down.
The Constitution isn't "Pick & Choose", it's all or nothing...

 

[printcraft]

They're called RHINO

Avowed. Like bernie or that occasional cortex flake.

 

[JettaKnight]

The modern republican party is the home for white supremacists. It's a shared ideals thing.

How many white supremacist democrat candidates have there been?

Just because there are some X in Y, doesn't make Y = X.


Now, it is true that there are several open & accepted socialist high up in the Democratic party. (e.g. Sanders, Cortez)

 

[printcraft]

Just because there are some X in Y, doesn't make Y = X.


Now, it is true that there are several open & accepted socialist high up in the Democratic party. (e.g. Sanders, Cortez)

"Shared Ideals" example: Single payer .gov health care < which party is generally in favor of that?

Q: Would socialist and communists find a home in the Republican party today?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There aren't constitutional challenges to swords, clubs, etc.

The EXACT wording is:
"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."

I'm well aware of the wording, hence my comment. I got the impression that you thought it only applied to firearms ca. 1789.

ETA: And I don't know if they've been constitutionally challenged or not (they should be), but there are assuredly local restrictions on knives (swords). NYC comes to mind.

 

[Mongo59]

Marine Corps bases come to mind...

 

[NKBJ]

About implementing global communism.

Big money wants big government and totalitarianism is absolutely the fave model.

Sufficiently just in time manufacturing, accurate tracking of consumer use of goods, efficient allotment of resources and timely distribution of goods were always the bane of centralized planning. The introduction of artificial intelligence, the "global brain", IOT (the internet of things" are intended to fix that. If you have been watching technology developments and reporting from technology conferences, defunding (started with that test case of porn cartoons being terrorism, was that 2003?) and the announced schedules for implementation then you know what the plans are for the elimination of ideological resistance.

I read about this control and defunding in the King James my mom gave me for Christmas in like 1967. Sure has taken a long time to come to pass.

 

[Route 45]

Just because there are some X in Y, doesn't make Y = X.

Now, it is true that there are several open & accepted socialist high up in the Democratic party. (e.g. Sanders, Cortez)

When the rising stars of the party are budding commies, Y will equal X soon enough. Maybe I'm just a bit early in calling it like I see it.

 

[NKBJ]

It's not "socialists" you need to worry about.
It's good old fashion jacobins.

 

[Ziggidy]

They're called RHINO

^^^^
+100

 

[JeepHammer]

I'm well aware of the wording, hence my comment. I got the impression that you thought it only applied to firearms ca. 1789.

ETA: And I don't know if they've been constitutionally challenged or not (they should be), but there are assuredly local restrictions on knives (swords). NYC comes to mind.

It IS circa 1789 wording & understanding, period firearms because that's the only frame of reference the forefathers had...
Do you REALLY think they had a chrystal ball that let them see machine guns?

Come on now, this isn't a science fiction movie with time travel...
Was science fiction even around when the Constitution was written?

To your second statement,
Local restrictions aren't federal law based on constitutional rights challenges.
I have no idea if knives/swords are 'Legal' to own, or to carry in public, or to possess all together, I stay out of New York City.
I haven't been there since September 2001, up to my armpits in police and no one said a word about the big sheath prybar/knife on my belt or the large automatic knife I had on my gear/harness.

I did loose a pocket clip knife in Boston a few years back, seems anything longer than 1.5" is illegal, but didn't get arrested, just surrendered my letter opener & fingernail cleaner and went on about my business.
I loose pocket knives to TSA with alarming regularity, forgetting I have them until I get to check in screening...

 

[NKBJ]

The Bill of Rights is based on human behavior which does not change, not technology which does.

 

[mmpsteve]

Wow!, I need to re-read the last few pages just to catch up. It would seem the latest socialism trend is bad on it's face, but a prelim view of this thread argues otherwise. I'll consult the Turkey, then point you all to the proper conclusion.

.

 

[KG1]

I’m not familiar with that, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Yeah I believe it was a case where Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled an outright ban on stun guns was unconstitutional.

Can’t post a link right now but it’s pretty easy to find on google.

 

[BugI02]

There aren't constitutional challenges to swords, clubs, etc.

The EXACT wording is:
"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."

Exactly how many of you are members of the "Militia"?
Which is the recognized "Militia" that has the right ".. to keep and bear arms"?
Where does it say you have a right "..to keep and bear arms" in your homes? vehicles? on your person?, etc...
Where exactly does it address machine guns, cannons, nuclear bombs, etc?

My point is (and I know you didn't miss it) there isn't specific wording, and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't address the current national guard, armories, etc.

Plus, the original poster was busy antagonizing Democrats, which many are gun owners...
It's the blanket statement that kicks part of the 30% gun owning minority right out of a second amendment discussion, (which this wasn't intended to be anyway).

These are the challenges that can be made to the second amendment (if people keep acting like idiots) and the division/alienation of an already undersized minority that will have the second amendment revisited, and with more than 2/3 of the population already considering a ban on several types of firearms, a revisit of the 2nd isn't a good idea under current political climate...
Things might not turn out the way *You* think they *Should*.

Since I own NFA firearms I'm a believer that the current system works for LEGAL machine guns, cannons, artillery, etc since so very few are used to murder other citizens...
It's a model for what probably should be considered when addressing firearms ownership, particularly specific types of firearms.
I'm not unwilling to discuss the situation, but considering the forefathers SPECIFICALLY inserted the right to bear arms, I'm not willing to make any knee jerk reaction one way or the other...

Our forefathers couldn't have imagined a bump stock and 100 round magazines, and yet I'm unwilling to make changes unless things are CLEARLY defined well in advance as not to pollute the original INTENT of the forefathers.
I'm also NOT willing to get locked into some bumper sticker dogma since I'm a somewhat rational human being...

I'll discuss it, and ultimately accept or reject with my single vote, but I WILL follow the law of the land, which ever way it comes down.
The Constitution isn't "Pick & Choose", it's all or nothing...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It IS circa 1789 wording & understanding, period firearms because that's the only frame of reference the forefathers had...
Do you REALLY think they had a chrystal ball that let them see machine guns?

Come on now, this isn't a science fiction movie with time travel...
Was science fiction even around when the Constitution was written?

To your second statement,
Local restrictions aren't federal law based on constitutional rights challenges.
I have no idea if knives/swords are 'Legal' to own, or to carry in public, or to possess all together, I stay out of New York City.
I haven't been there since September 2001, up to my armpits in police and no one said a word about the big sheath prybar/knife on my belt or the large automatic knife I had on my gear/harness.

I did loose a pocket clip knife in Boston a few years back, seems anything longer than 1.5" is illegal, but didn't get arrested, just surrendered my letter opener & fingernail cleaner and went on about my business.
I loose pocket knives to TSA with alarming regularity, forgetting I have them until I get to check in screening...

Boy! Talk about "deflection." ("Come on now, this isn't a science fiction movie with time travel . . . " To (mis)quote a timeworn phrase: "What is it about the term 'Arms' you don't understand? The attempts at restricting civilian possession of various "arms" is a phenomenon of the past 100 years; it certainly isn't a part of what the Founders intended, and it weakens your -rather wordy and smug - argument to claim otherwise.