|
Post by colt46 on Sept 16, 2024 13:32:20 GMT -5
I repeat myself you that hate Trump go form your I hate Trump forum so you can kiss 💋 each others ass!
|
|
|
Post by Education on Sept 16, 2024 13:37:15 GMT -5
Have an idea of your own.
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Sept 16, 2024 13:39:14 GMT -5
I say the same to you Education! Your post is nonsense!
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Sept 16, 2024 14:57:43 GMT -5
Nah, Glump would never pull a theatrical stunt. No way. I wouldn't put it past him. Remember in politics and showbiz the key question is: "When have you been shot lately?" Nobody would count on only being grazed (1st time). And the 2nd time alleged shooter has quite the colorful history. When the rhetoric (both sides, to some extent) gets amped up to 11, it shouldn't be a surprise that pre-existing crazies come out of the woodwork. (nevertheless, Democrat ideology has become extreme and defective, not rhetoric but an observable) So far, the crazies have been a bit one-sided (not that we need opposite crazies too!).
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Sept 16, 2024 15:08:48 GMT -5
Trying to blame republicans stance on guns for an assassination attempt is beyond moronic. So who is to blame for the zillions of guns floating around America: the ones who want gun control or the ones who reject gun control? Or is it just a fact of nature that nobody can be blamed for and nothing can be done about it and we shouldn't even try to stop it? How about reading what the darn Second Amendment actually says, and the remarks made around the time it was written. Not to mention recent Supreme Court rulings that returned its interpretation back to closer to its original meaning. The right to eradicate invaders, tyrants, and immediate threats to life is greater than the right to be safe from crazies with guns. And there have been mass murders with knives, fuel+fertilizer, etc; including in countries with very strict gun restrictions. If guns were never invented, they'd still happen. And with 3D printers and designs out there on the Internet, anyone could make their own gun anyway, even if they weren't a skilled machinist. A gun does NOT have to be high tech, but the least tech that does what it was designed to do. Odd how a Secret Service agent used a what, gun? to disrupt the most recent attempted assassination. So, ok to have the Secret Service defend Trump, but not ok to defend ourselves from criminals and if it ever happens, tyrants? NOT reasonable. A gun makes granny the equal of a 6 ft 200 lb muscle-bound thug. That's a GOOD thing.
|
|
Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 15:13:32 GMT -5
Nobody would count on only being grazed (1st time). What makes you think he was grazed? I love the fake blood, the "fight, fight, fight", and the bandage. Very well performed and choreographed, my compliments to the director. Unfortunately, it all went down the toilet at the debate when Unserious Kamala clobbered the Pussy Grabber. Best laid plans of mice and men.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Sept 16, 2024 15:23:59 GMT -5
Nobody would count on only being grazed (1st time). What makes you think he was grazed? I love the fake blood, the "fight, fight, fight", and the bandage. Very well performed and choreographed, my compliments to the director. Unfortunately, it all went down the toilet at the debate when Unserious Kamala clobbered the Pussy Grabber. Best laid plans of mice and men. lol...oh stop, you don't even believe any of that. Stop being dumb (if you can)
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Sept 16, 2024 15:24:12 GMT -5
I will say again Trump haters form your own forum and post your ANTI- Trump post on that forum!
|
|
Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 15:24:56 GMT -5
The right to eradicate invaders, tyrants, and immediate threats to life is greater than the right to be safe from crazies with guns. I paraphrase my earlier post: By that logic, Trump's would-be assassins are simply members of the public who are simply defending America against who they see as a tyrant who lost an election and tried (and failed) to hang on to power. So the assassin's actions are completely justified (although their competence is obviously greatly lacking).
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Sept 16, 2024 15:45:04 GMT -5
The right to eradicate invaders, tyrants, and immediate threats to life is greater than the right to be safe from crazies with guns. I paraphrase my earlier post: By that logic, Trump's would-be assassins are simply members of the public who are simply defending America against who they see as a tyrant who lost an election and tried (and failed) to hang on to power. So the assassin's actions are completely justified (although their competence is obviously greatly lacking). That's delusional. Trump didn't destroy us; in fact, although he pushed unlikely theories to their limit, he DID NOT EVEN TRY. Biden didn't destroy us, although he certainly did harm. A 2nd Trump term won't either. Probably even evil yet stupid Kamala won't destroy us. We're tougher that politicians of any flavor. And there's a lot more of us. You don't get to shoot until the other guy seriously crosses a line. Trump didn't. edit: proof that Republicans value the rule of law more than Democrats: Republicans on average are far more armed, yet Democrats are still alive.
|
|
Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 15:57:59 GMT -5
You don't get to shoot until the other guy seriously crosses a line. But you missed the point. Who has the power to decide when somebody crosses the line and when somebody doesn't cross the line?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 16:42:34 GMT -5
The right to eradicate invaders, tyrants, and immediate threats to life is greater than the right to be safe from crazies with guns. I paraphrase my earlier post: By that logic, Trump's would-be assassins are simply members of the public who are simply defending America against who they see as a tyrant who lost an election and tried (and failed) to hang on to power. So the assassin's actions are completely justified (although their competence is obviously greatly lacking). The logic about gun control is not my own, but is contained in the Constitution itself. We could spend many, many lengthy posts discussing all aspects of this topic including definitions of "arms", "militias", etc. The debate about the purpose of the 2nd amendment has raged since the inception of the Constitution. The most conservative view on the purpose of the 2nd amendment is likely the one echoed by the National Constitution Center linked here: In summary, the view is:
Abundant historical evidence indicates that the Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against unlawful violence. Such threats might come from usurpers of governmental power, but they might also come from criminals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control. According to this view, the 2nd amendment applies to both individuals who are in pursuit of self-defense from other individuals AND to groups of citizens who are in pursuit of defending themselves from their own government. The contradiction that you have referred to is "baked in the cake" of the Constitution. The Constitution granted the federal government to recruit standing armies in case of foreign invasions, but it also granted the rights of the people to defend itself if necessary from those standing armies. It is a reflection of the idea that the people should not be afraid of the government, but the government should be afraid of the people. Regarding your comment:
By that logic, Trump's would-be assassins are simply members of the public who are simply defending America against who they see as a tyrant who lost an election and tried (and failed) to hang on to power. At America's founding, King George in England was viewed as a tyrant, and if England had its choice, the colonists would not have had any weapons. The English troops sent to Lexington and Concord were specifically sent to seize and destroy weapons that the colonists had been collecting.
So the assassin's actions are completely justified (although their competence is obviously greatly lacking). In America, whether the actions are justified most likely depends on who is viewed as the tyrant. Liberals might define Trump as a tyrant, while conservatives would look at someone like O'Bama or Kamala.
In the case we are discussing, at this point of time, neither party has crossed the line to become actual tyrants. Even though the threshold is subjective, no government official would be termed to be a tyrant until he/she has used the levers of government to kill large numbers of people or to create laws that would punish a population so severely, that economic survival is barely feasible. According to this viewpoint, Trump's would-be assassins are unjustified because, even though they might view Trump as a tyrant, he has not demonstrated the actions of a tyrant.
|
|
Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Leftwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 17:32:42 GMT -5
Even though the threshold is subjective, no government official would be termed to be a tyrant until he/she has used the levers of government to kill large numbers of people or to create laws that would punish a population so severely, that economic survival is barely feasible. According to this viewpoint, Trump's would-be assassins are unjustified because, even though they might view Trump as a tyrant, he has not demonstrated the actions of a tyrant. I'll ask you the same questions as I asked BOGC: (1) who determines the criteria used to define "tyrant", and (2) who decides whether an individual meets the definition of that criteria?
|
|
Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist
Guest
|
Post by Rightwing Conspiracy Theorist on Sept 16, 2024 17:45:18 GMT -5
Even though the threshold is subjective, no government official would be termed to be a tyrant until he/she has used the levers of government to kill large numbers of people or to create laws that would punish a population so severely, that economic survival is barely feasible. According to this viewpoint, Trump's would-be assassins are unjustified because, even though they might view Trump as a tyrant, he has not demonstrated the actions of a tyrant. I'll ask you the same questions as I asked BOGC: (1) who determines the criteria used to define "tyrant", and (2) who decides whether an individual meets the definition of that criteria? As I said below, those definitions are subjective. The founders likely had their own definition of what constitutes a tyrant, but as I mentioned, I think we can define a tyrant as someone who kills large numbers of his/her population or someone who creates laws oppressive enough that surviving economically is unfeasible. Names such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. come to mind. Back in the days of the colonists, being taxed without being represented got King George labeled as a tyrant. Unfortunately, world history shows that he with the most and biggest guns gets to define what constitutes a tyrant. A recent example is when the US government invaded Iraq with the excuse that Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction".
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Sept 16, 2024 18:24:20 GMT -5
Trump said the war in Iraq was wrong and he was right! There were no weapons of mass destruction!
|
|