ubergeek @ ubergeek @lemmy.today

Posts

6

Comments

1,508

Joined

8 mo. ago

She lost, because (IMO) she basically gave a big middle finger to:

• Leftists
• Progressives
• Arab-Americans

And, because she decided these people were great people:

• Dick Cheney
• Bill Kristol
• Georgie Bush
• Mike Pence

You know? The war criminals and war criminal enablers.

The lesson Dems need to learn is that no matter how much they shift right, they're not winning GOP voters. All they are doing is shedding voters on the left. The whole "Vote for us because other team is bad" rings hollow when you're doing everything the other team is doing, too.

Harris was a full communist to the GOP.

I dont think it matters much.

Due process includes the process of your ballot eligibility being reviewed, and then denied, based on things that are prima facie.

Yes, sorry... the militia clause, as its known

The purpose of the militia is to put down insurrection, not to engage in it.

The word "regulated" has had only one actual meaning... the same as it means to regulate interstate commerce.

And only a couple of years later, the militia acts passed.

I pray you actually read what people point you too:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Nah, I was only replying to the part about you not being a 2a supporter, showing you dont have to be, in order to support an armed working class 😀

Please read why the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to apply to people...

I'm not keen on the 2A, based on it's original purpose and use. I am, however, pro "Under no pretext shall arms and ammunition be surrendered, and any attempts to do should be frustrated, by force, if necessary."

For all those reasons you named, are exactly the reasons I don't want Dems curtailing the right to keep and bear arms.

Notice ICE focusing on low gun ownership regions?

In your case, I'd suggest considering the fact that gun laws usually have grandfather clauses, in order to pass constitutional muster (Depriving people of property, without recompense).

So, the fash will be heavily armed, and any resistance to that cannot arm themselves.

We're not all in the same group... I'm not an ICE agent, but I am a gun toting American working class person.

In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with.

No, it doesn't. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia's purpose is. At the time "the people" meant "the states", as each state was to be secure in it's own abilities and authorities to manage it's militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.

Remember, also, that to be "in the militia", you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.

No it doesn't. The role of the militias were to be called up to put down insurrection and slave revolts.

They only read part of the 2A, as well, and none of the context in the rest of the document about it, either.

The whole "well regulated militia", and who and why the militia is.

So numbers are threats now?

8647

And order 66 47

Or, by running through sand or mud!

My wording was clumsy, but Trump's admin is pulling away from toppling democratic governments.

Better for whom? The world is actually better off, generally, with Trump pulling back from global politics and toppling democratic governments...

If the US strikes any NATO member, it's an automatic declaration of war against the aggressor state, which in this case would be the US, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

If it doesn't result in an automatic declaration, that means NATO has failed, and isn't worth the paper it's written on. It's a mutual defense treaty.

Turnout is usually about 30%.