Jump to content
Phil Perry

Don't get me wrong here, But I LIKE Donald Trump.

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

the "No New Foreign War" President.

Not for the want of trying. Did you see the new big ICBM that Kim Jong Un rolled out as a "present for Donald Trump" (I don't think he was trying to sell it". And my daughter tells me he is trying to rekindle the Iran conflict. Then there's all his blaming China for the virus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope any awards he gets are posthumous, and he gets them quickly!

 

I'm all for compulsory voting.  An imposition on someone's freedom??  Once every 4 years you have to get off your ar$e and actually participate in the democracy you're benefiting from?  Give me a break!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump campaign is getting really desperate now asking for more donations saying Biden must pay for his Treasonous plot of spying on his campaign & blaming it on the Russians. Trump says he wants to make a statement so big that even the fake new won't be able to ignore it & if the donation is made in the next hour (8/10 6.30pm) it would be 825% matched. It gets crazier by the hour there.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need for Trump to start another international War - he's virtually initiated a Civil War at home, that must be worth some kind of award.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, 13 members of the Michigan Liberty Militia (backed and encouraged by Trump) have been indicted in a domestic terrorism plot, whereby they planned to kidnap the Michigan State Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, take her to a remote location, and carry out a "trial" for treason. I wonder what the penalty would have been, once she was found guilty? One doesn't have to be Einstein, to guess the answer to that.

 

I'm surprised it's taken so long to nail these "militia", as nothing more than angry, gun-worshipping, home-grown terrorists.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-11/abc-met-two-men-arrested-over-gretchen-whitmer-kidnap-plot/12750998

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-09/six-arrested-plot-to-kidnap-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer/12746278

Edited by onetrack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second Amendment

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.

 

Who is regulating these militia?

 

From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

This begs the question of whether high-powered military weapons are outside the "in common use" criterion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the Second Amendment to mean something more like an Army Reserve rather than a redneck posse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red750 said:

I take the Second Amendment to mean something more like an Army Reserve rather than a redneck posse.

As would any rational human being.

 

14 hours ago, old man emu said:

 

This begs the question of whether high-powered military weapons are outside the "in common use" criterion.  

...and the rational being would say "of course they bloody are".

 

Trouble is your bible-thumping Republican redneck gun addict is not a rational being, and believes that he should have the freedom to own any weapon he wants, up to and including a SAM or .50 cal Browning.

 

Most of the rest of the world, including me, would say "as a civilian, you only need a gun for hunting or vermin control, so why do you need anything more than a 10-shot bolt action hunting rifle?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not only the unlimited calibre and firepower of the firearms you can purchase and legally own in the U.S. - there is no limit to the number of firearms you can own. I can recall one nutter bragging about his collection of 113 firearms.

 

Then there's these sickos posting videos showing them teaching their suckling babes to fire powerful firearms - on the basis of, "you gotta teach 'em young". These f**kwits all need to be jailed as child-abusers.

 

The idiocy in the American firearms laws is that you can own semi-automatic AK-47's, AR-15's, Glock 22's - and 50 cal Barretts - all without any need for a licence of any kind.

 

However, you can also own a (fully-automatic) machine gun - but it has to be registered (under the 1934 Firearms Act - because Al Capone and his mates used them, and that now makes owning machine guns a bit of a touchy subject in the U.S.)

 

However, you can't buy a newly-built machine gun - but you can still buy a used machine gun - provided it was built before 1986. What happened in 1986? The U.S. Govt passed the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which stopped firearm owners from buying new machine guns. Of course, all that did was send the price of used machine guns sky-high. I have no idea why the Act was called the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" - it should've been called the "General Public Protection Act".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also not that hard to modify a semi automatic to become a fully automatic machine gun.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the video I posted a couple of weeks ago showed, a kid can legaly buy a rifle at a gun show, but can't buy a racy magazine, scratchie, or an alcoholic beverage. Ridiculous.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second Amendment

 

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.

 

When this amendment was framed and put up for acceptance, the thought behind it was that, because the United States of America was a federation of independent States, each State had the right for self-defence against other States and military forces of the Federal Government. Therefore, each State had the right to form its own military force for its own protection. These militia were formed and over time have evolved into States' National Guard units, for want of conformity in operations as a group of States can join together for common defence (the Army of the Confederacy). However, apart from attacks from internal sources, the United States was still threatened by English and French forces entering from Canada. So militias, under the regulation of each State could be called upon to defend the State against foreign attack.

 

In 1791 when the Second Amendment was accepted,  the people did own firearms, mainly for hunting. These firearms consisted of black powder, muzzle-loading long arms and hand-held guns of limited range. The people were too busy trying to eke out a living in virgin country with medieval farming tools to be involved in permanent military activity. During the 19th Century firearms evolved from the loose black powder and ball muzzle loader, to the pre-loaded cartridge, semi- and full automatic firearms we are now familiar with today. As a product of the 19th Century industrial revolution, firearms became readily accessible to the population, and the development of the hand gun, from the cumbersome powder and ball of the 18th Century to the revolver of the second half of the 19th, gun ownership became as common as owning a hat. As a result, guns were seen as another form of self-protection in the same way as swords and knives had been in earlier times. Opponents of regulatory arguments fear a loss of safety. They argue that restricting the right to bear arms would leave citizens unable to protect themselves in their daily lives or, in a worst-case scenario, from a government turned against the people (another Civil War).

 

The Second Amendment was introduced in order to maintain a British right set out in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (only one hundred years before the Second Amendment). The framers of the Second Amendment grew up under the umbrella of that Bill.  One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm his subjects. King James II was a Catholic and wanted to disarm the Protestants to prevent a recurrence of the British Civil War. The bill states that it is acting to restore "ancient rights" trampled upon by James II. The bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed.

 

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right for the unlimited possession of firearms.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers of America would be stunned and dismayed by the way their "untouchable" Second Amendment has been turned into a free-for-all of constant, uncontrolled, regular wilful murder  - and the firearms developments of today would make their eyes pop.

 

In the days when they framed the Second Amendment, firearms were slow, cumbersome, unreliable - and posed nearly as much danger to the user, as to the recipient of the bullet.

 

But with the advent of better steels, vastly improved manufacturing methods, cartridge ammunition - and a potent power group in the form of the firearms manufacturers and their rich supporters - the entire Second Amendment provisions have developed a life and direction of their own that the Founding Fathers could have never envisaged. They would more than likely be appalled to see the gun worship and slaughter in the America of today.

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

the entire Second Amendment provisions have developed a life and direction of their own that the Founding Fathers could have never envisaged.

Too true. My interpretation is that the Second Amendment was accepted as a means for each independent State to prepare itself to defend its sovereignty against the other States, who might be acting either individually, or as part of a Federal force.

 

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not yet exist). Following the declaration of secession by South Carolina on December 20, 1860, its authorities demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbour.

 

The Civil War put hundreds of thousands of guns into the hands of the people. These guns were mainly barrel loaded, but during the war breech loading rifles started to become available. Revolver hand guns were also common. Following the war, these guns remained in the hands of the people, and the impetus that the war gave to firearms manufacturers, especially revolver manufacturers, made these more efficient firearms readily available to those people moving into the opening Western areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little Donny has complained about the condition of the final TV Debate that means that, while each debater is speaking for two minutes in response to the question, the other debater will have his microphone muted. Donny is not so worried about not being able to speak over Biden. He's worried that he will have to listen to someone else speaking for two minutes and then try to remember what was said.

 

It doesn't help that he has already told the female moderator that she should go home and have a baby. 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this election really all about Donald Trump or is it all about the state of the United States electors?

From what we have seen on the media about this election I can only assume that if trump wins, the electors of USA will have nobody but themselves to blame.

We have heard Trump come up with so many absolutely ridiculous statements that even Blind Freddy could not betaken in by him. Not only does he abound with stupid statements, but he is forever denigrating all the people around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POLLS SHOW BIDEN AHEAD!

Well, that's what the media is reporting, but don't forget that there is only one poll that matters -the one on 3rd November.

 

Is the Trump team using the same game plan that got him into The Office in 2016? Is it relying on one thing that we have here - compulsory voting. All the Trump team has to do is fire up its Party's supporters with the thought that Biden could win unless they get themselves to the polling booths, and at the same time promote those polls that say Biden is a shoo-in so that his mob don't bother voting. The plan worked in 2016 and I doubt if the American voters are a wake up to it.

 

Forget about Russia, North Korea and Iran interfering with the election. The US media is hard at work, virtually legally, making up the minds of the US electorate.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a common tactic... even in Aus, where it is not so much about whether or not to turn up, but who to cast your vote for (e.g. look, he is leading by so much that unless you vote for us, they weill be an elected dictatorship). Or, they rely on donkey votes, etc.

 

This is a sobering and worrying article: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-pennsylvania-special-rep/special-report-why-the-pennsylvania-vote-count-might-throw-u-s-into-political-crisis-idUKKBN2781FQ?il=0

 

America is a dangerous place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of swimming against the tide, I'm still tipping a Trump win. Possibly a re-run of 2016; losing the popular vote and winning the electoral college vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a case of swimming against the tide. I think it's a case of picking at which stage the ebb and flow have reached.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willedoo. What you are really saying is that you consider the US voters to be idiots. I agree with you and have been tipping Trump to win for ages.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the sleeper factor. A lot of people who may be leaning toward Trump might not publicly say so for fear of being howled down. The polls were a long way out last time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Trump and the US military alliances. Has his determination to get the US allies in NATO and Asia to kick in their fair share of the costs of military backup caused those Nations to pull back from the alliances?

 

I cannot vouch for the political leaning of the producers of this video, but its content is worth discussing. Amazingly, the only alliance that seems to be holding is the ANZUS Treaty.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...