ForumGarden

I've just seen one on FaceBook I found rather amusing:

Reality TV idea: We build a fake White House & put Trump in it, tell him he's President & film the whole thing.

Saint_;1499915 wrote: That's the page I'm on too. We don't let people have missile launchers and grenades, do we?


I don't exactly know where missile launchers fall under the concept to bear arms. I have a brother-in-law who told me about the hassle to buy two grenades. He concluded the cost of the grenades were nothing compared to what the federal government required for permission.

I come away with the impression that like machine guns they are legal (depending on your state) but the fed government decided to make it just too expensive.

Saint_;1499915 wrote: Why on Earth would we condone military assault rifles?


Maybe because it is a natural, civil and Constitutional right? But like grenades, for all practical purposes such firearms are out of the reach of your average citizen.

Saint_;1499915 wrote: How about this: A tax of $1,000 per bullet.


How about respecting the Constitutional rights of your fellow citizens?

tude dog;1499923 wrote: How about respecting the Constitutional rights of your fellow citizens?The only CONSTITUTIONAL right involving guns is the right to "BEAR ARMS" as a member of a "well-regulated militia", and as another poster pointed out, the phrase "BEAR ARMS", at the time that the Constitution was established, referred SPECIFICALLY to the militia, soldiers, and other government agents.

Farmers, target shooters, hunters, etc. did not "BEAR ARMS", they just "owned guns" or "had guns" as needed. BIG difference. The idea of crazy people, traitors, and ignoramuses having a constitutional right to go around shooting people, from one's next door neighbor to government officials, is downright OBSCENE.

tude dog;1499923 wrote: I don't exactly know where missile launchers fall under the concept to bear arms. I have a brother-in-law who told me about the hassle to buy two grenades. He concluded the cost of the grenades were nothing compared to what the federal government required for permission.

I come away with the impression that like machine guns they are legal (depending on your state) but the fed government decided to make it just too expensive.



Maybe because it is a natural, civil and Constitutional right? But like grenades, for all practical purposes such firearms are out of the reach of your average citizen.




From my observation, that has GOT to be a good thing.

Mark Aspam;1499928 wrote: The only CONSTITUTIONAL right involving guns is the right to "BEAR ARMS" as a member of a "well-regulated militia", and as another poster pointed out, the phrase "BEAR ARMS", at the time that the Constitution was established, referred SPECIFICALLY to the militia, soldiers, and other government agents.

Farmers, target shooters, hunters, etc. did not "BEAR ARMS", they just "owned guns" or "had guns" as needed. BIG difference. The idea of crazy people, traitors, and ignoramuses having a constitutional right to go around shooting people, from one's next door neighbor to government officials, is downright OBSCENE.


Amendment II - 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.


It is our right, the people to keep and bear arms.

tude dog;1499930 wrote: It is our right, the people to keep and bear arms.LOL! I've heard of circular arguments, but this is just getting ridiculous!

Of which well-regulated militia are you and your gun-totin' buddies members? If you're not members, then you don't BEAR ARMS according to the constitution. You do something else, which may or may not be legal and/or protected. If you are in doubt, you could call, anonymously, your local police station or contact your representative in Congress.

P.S. And once again, it's completely off the subject of the thread.

Mark Aspam;1499931 wrote: LOL! I've heard of circular arguments, but this is just getting ridiculous!

Of which well-regulated militia are you and your gun-totin' buddies members? If you're not members, then you don't BEAR ARMS according to the constitution. You do something else, which may or may not be legal and/or protected. If you are in doubt, you could call, anonymously, your local police station or contact your representative in Congress.

P.S. And once again, it's completely off the subject of the thread.


It's interesting to note, though, that when the 2nd Amendment was written the US did not have a standing army. The militias mentioned were the equivalent of today's national guard. Since we now have a standing army and a national guard reserve system, the militias mentioned really no longer serve the original purpose and thus are not needed. If the militias are not needed, isn't the amendment obsolete?

Ha ha ha......right to bear arms? ....you mean the right to bear a musket!..... ammendments are exactly that....something that gets ammended.. Ammendments arent written in stone.

Btw i hear Obama founded ISIS? Hes a busy busy man.

magentaflame;1499934 wrote: Ha ha ha......right to bear arms? ....you mean the right to bear a musket!..... ammendments are exactly that....something that gets ammended.. Ammendments arent written in stone.

Btw i hear Obama founded ISIS? Hes a busy busy man.


Yup, Trump said that Obama founded ISIS and that Hillary is the MVP in ISIS. And he isn't backing down on that. He has defended it in subsequent interviews. Amazing!

Wandrin;1499933 wrote: It's interesting to note, though, that when the 2nd Amendment was written the US did not have a standing army. The militias mentioned were the equivalent of today's national guard. Since we now have a standing army and a national guard reserve system, the militias mentioned really no longer serve the original purpose and thus are not needed. If the militias are not needed, isn't the amendment obsolete?You are correct, the National Guard is the current equivalent, so I, tho' no constitutional scholar, would presume that the NG "fills the bill" of the amendment in question rather than making it obsolete.

I think the main thing here is that there are gun laws and those who ignore them or attempt to claim the laws don't apply to them should be socked with a nice long prison sentence, that might change their minds.

I am not a gun person and confess that I know very little about the current laws because I have no need for them. It's possible that some areas, including those of the Kansas poster, do not require registration, that's fine. If registration IS required there and he does not comply, he should be arrested and jailed. Period.

P.S. As far as I know, the NG members' arms are not taken home but left at the armory. That's why it's called an armory.

Mark Aspam;1499931 wrote: LOL! I've heard of circular arguments, but this is just getting ridiculous!

Of which well-regulated militia are you and your gun-totin' buddies members? If you're not members, then you don't BEAR ARMS according to the constitution. You do something else, which may or may not be legal and/or protected. If you are in doubt, you could call, anonymously, your local police station or contact your representative in Congress.

P.S. And once again, it's completely off the subject of the thread.


Just what is a well regulate militia?

The Supreme Court couldn't find one in its decision McDonald v. City of Chicago

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,

Wandrin;1499936 wrote: Yup, Trump said that Obama founded ISIS and that Hillary is the MVP in ISIS. And he isn't backing down on that. He has defended it in subsequent interviews. Amazing!


So Obama is not the messiah? Just a very naughty boy then?

Wandrin;1499933 wrote: It's interesting to note, though, that when the 2nd Amendment was written the US did not have a standing army. The militias mentioned were the equivalent of today's national guard. Since we now have a standing army and a national guard reserve system, the militias mentioned really no longer serve the original purpose and thus are not needed. If the militias are not needed, isn't the amendment obsolete?


I would say that right is more necessary as the federal government all-encompassing power expands.

The government has no rights except those which we permit. The right if we choose is to take their guns, not them taking ours.

May i suggest a comedian..... jim jeffries on gun control....its hysterical!

tude dog;1499942 wrote: The right if we choose is to take their guns, not them taking ours.Well, gee whiz tude, why didn't you say so in the first place! Now all you have to do is get your gun-toting buddies together, arm yourselves to the teeth, march to the nearest FBI headquarters, and demand their guns! Be sure to let us know how you make out!



Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, it's become rather obvious that Donald Trump is going to pretty much destroy the Republican party. I'm 75 and I've only voted for four Republicans in my life, including the current mayor of Champaign, Illinois, because she is a personal friend of my wife, and because the previous mayor, a Democrat, was a real a******.

So, although a lifelong Democrat, I DO have some respect for the GOP.

Donald Trump is well on his way to destroying the Republican party beyond salvation. Both the Senate and the House will go Democrat, and the halcyon Clinton years, the best since FDR, will be restored.

I look forward to a GNP (Grand NEW Party), perhaps a consolidation of the Green and Libertarian parties, to emerge. The next four - or perhaps eight - years will be something really special for the USA!

tude dog;1499942 wrote: The government has no rights except those which we permit. The right if we choose is to take their guns, not them taking ours.


Do you honestly believe that ?

I would like to see you try to take their guns.

Bruv;1499949 wrote: Do you honestly believe that ?

I would like to see you try to take their guns.


Gosh, me too (again).

Tude, your newest link, again from the NRA, still does not have Hillary threatening the existence of the 2nd Amendment, just clearing up the excess. Looks like you also are seeing things that are not there.

tude dog;1499923 wrote: But like grenades, for all practical purposes such firearms are out of the reach of your average citizen.


Hahahaha! You just used the ANTI-GUN CONTROL argument "then only criminals will have them" FOR gun control! If making it more difficult to get something decreases the number of people that have them, then that's good and it works.

How about respecting the Constitutional rights of your fellow citizens?


How about changing the constitution to reflect the 21st Century? It was made to be a living document. We have amended it many times. And even repealed amendments before. As as for respecting my fellow citizens, how is it respectful to allow thirty thousand of them to get shot every year?

Australia and Japan both got rid of guns and were much safer and better for it. What? Are they better than us?

magentaflame;1499943 wrote: May i suggest a comedian..... jim jeffries on gun control....its hysterical!


You're right, that was hilarious!

Even we, in the U.K., as a people have the right to bear arms inasmuch as we have Trident. Does that mean that the individual should have the right to own their own nuclear missiles.

It seems, to me, that you are confusing the PEOPLE (as a Nation), and the INDIVIDUAL (as a person).

Mark Aspam;1499945 wrote: Well, gee whiz tude, why didn't you say so in the first place! Now all you have to do is get your gun-toting buddies together, arm yourselves to the teeth,


What gun-toting buddies do you speak of?

Mark Aspam;1499945 wrote: march to the nearest FBI headquarters, and demand their guns!


That makes no sense at all.

Mark Aspam;1499945 wrote: Be sure to let us know how you make out!


It's your fantasy. You tell the rest of us the whole story. I am hardly waiting.

Mark Aspam;1499945 wrote: Now, getting back to the topic of the thread, it's become rather obvious that Donald Trump is going to pretty much destroy the Republican party. I'm 75 and I've only voted for four Republicans in my life, including the current mayor of Champaign, Illinois, because she is a personal friend of my wife, and because the previous mayor, a Democrat, was a real a******.

So, although a lifelong Democrat, I DO have some respect for the GOP.

Donald Trump is well on his way to destroying the Republican party beyond salvation. Both the Senate and the House will go Democrat, and the halcyon Clinton years, the best since FDR, will be restored.

I look forward to a GNP (Grand NEW Party), perhaps a consolidation of the Green and Libertarian parties, to emerge. The next four - or perhaps eight - years will be something really special for the USA!

FourPart;1499986 wrote: Even we, in the U.K., as a people have the right to bear arms inasmuch as we have Trident. Does that mean that the individual should have the right to own their own nuclear missiles.

It seems, to me, that you are confusing the PEOPLE (as a Nation), and the INDIVIDUAL (as a person).


Oh NO, NOT at ALL.

The Bill of Rights deals directly with the individual. It is about protection from the abuse of as you put it the NATION.

For example,

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Bill Of Rights

As far as Trident and nuclear missiles, that would fall under what you refer to as the Nation. Our Constitution provides for the creations of armies. Not only that, those are not exactly what I would think of when bearing arms.

tude dog;1500004 wrote: Oh NO, NOT at ALL.

The Bill of Rights deals directly with the individual. It is about protection from the abuse of as you put it the NATION.

For example,



Bill Of Rights

As far as Trident and nuclear missiles, that would fall under what you refer to as the Nation. Our Constitution provides for the creations of armies. Not only that, those are not exactly what I would think of when bearing arms.


'People' is a plural term, last I knew.

An assault rifle is a far cry from a musket as far as what can be considered 'arms'. The musket is a far cry from a stick or a rock. Throughout the scale with anything, there is always that next step on the ladder. Each one isn't much more than the next. Trident & other nuclear weapons are just further progressions along the scale.

Perhaps the first stage to repealing gun laws could be to limit the number of rounds each gun is capable of firing, and / or the caliber of the weapon. That, at least, would put a stop to assault weapons which, by definition, are not for defence.

tude dog;1500002 wrote: What gun-toting buddies do you speak of? That makes no sense at all. Well, you seem to be saying that if you have some disagreement with government policies, you have the right, either alone or with your neighbors, to go out and start shooting people.

If I've misunderstood your position, please state it more precisely. Government officials are there because the people elected them, or because they were appointed by people who were popularly elected. If you don't like the way they're doing what you elected them to do, you have the right to vote them out in the next election. You don't have the right to riot, either with or without guns.

FourPart;1500005 wrote: 'People' is a plural term, last I knew.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You can argue that all you want, but it it has never been the interpretation by any court that it does not apply to the individual.

FourPart;1500005 wrote: An assault rifle is a far cry from a musket as far as what can be considered 'arms'. The musket is a far cry from a stick or a rock. Throughout the scale with anything, there is always that next step on the ladder. Each one isn't much more than the next. Trident & other nuclear weapons are just further progressions along the scale.


Stick by that logic if you want.

FourPart;1500005 wrote: Perhaps the first stage to repealing gun laws could be to limit the number of rounds each gun is capable of firing,


Oh yea, that is being done in several states with no apparent effect on crime.

FourPart;1500005 wrote: and / or the caliber of the weapon. That, at least, would put a stop to assault weapons which, by definition, are not for defence.


I believed I already explained to you there are few legally owned "assault" weapons and almost no crimes are committed by them.

@Tude Do you chew tobacco and go by the name Wishbone ?

Bruv;1500043 wrote: @Tude Do you chew tobacco and go by the name Wishbone ?


Hey, pardner.

If you meant the character on the show Rawhide (TV series), I take that as a great compliment.

Thanks

I love that show. Wishbone certainly never did soil his beard with chaw. Was not a drunkard and did not engaged in any other vice.

That and he is also better looking than me.

In the show when the bosses were gone and all things were going to heck, everybody looked to Mr.Wishbone.

In short, he had the qualities of bravery, honor, and leadership. A fictional character whose values I could only hope to live up to.

EXTREME! Vetting...........does that make Trump an extremist now?

Saint_;1499972 wrote: You're right, that was hilarious!




Did you see part 2 as well?...and his routine on trump....omg i almost fell off my chair.

Tude and mark as spam should watch it.

magentaflame;1500048 wrote: Did you see part 2 as well?...and his routine on trump....omg i almost fell off my chair.

Tude and mark as spam should watch it.


First of all, a link would have been nice.

Opinion is fine. Goofing is to be celebrated.

Once it became an editorial espousing unconfirmed stats, it begins to sound more like propaganda.

The problem with Youtube is there is no text to answer such blatant lies or assertions.

Saint i think had the link.......and be nice!

Quote Originally Posted by FourPart

'People' is a plural term, last I knew.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You can argue that all you want, but it it has never been the interpretation by any court that it does not apply to the individual.


I always thought it took more than an individual to assemble.

Ummm....just a thought, and im having to remember high dchool legal studies here ....... when you have a law or an ammendment or a parliamentary bill, theres always a write up as to what each word means within the context of it in the document. All you have to do is look up the explanation and context of the words youre arguing over and the problem is sold.

FourPart;1500222 wrote: I always thought it took more than an individual to assemble.


Thanks for pointing out that individuals have the right to assemble.

magentaflame;1500224 wrote: Ummm....just a thought, and im having to remember high dchool legal studies here ....... when you have a law or an ammendment or a parliamentary bill, theres always a write up as to what each word means within the context of it in the document. All you have to do is look up the explanation and context of the words youre arguing over and the problem is sold.


When you find that let the rest of us know.

tude dog;1500225 wrote: Thanks for pointing out that individuals have the right to assemble.I think what he means, td, is that individuals plural can assemble, both legally and logically, but AN individual cannot - it's a contradiction in terms.

The REAL kicker though, is not the word individual(s) but the word PEACEABLY.

Self-ordained nutjobs, like the recent bunch in Oregon, are not peaceable. As far as I have heard, they are now in prison as they should be, except of course for the one who shot at the lawmen and was killed, as he should have expected.

Trump is in Mexico meeting with Mexico's President to negotiate the Wall and then off to Arizona to try & re-coop votes.

I'm anxious to hear who's paying for the Wall.:wah:

I also heard Hillary has a appointment to meet with Mexico's President.

Just a update

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1500566 wrote: Trump is in Mexico meeting with Mexico's President to negotiate the Wall and then off to Arizona to try & re-coop votes.

I'm anxious to hear who's paying for the Wall.:wah:

I also heard Hillary has a appointment to meet with Mexico's President.

Just a update

Patsy


The Mexican president invite both candidates down for a visit.

I keep hoping that The Donald will lose his passport, and we can refuse to let him back in.

LarsMac;1500574 wrote: The Mexican president invite both candidates down for a visit.

I keep hoping that The Donald will lose his passport, and we can refuse to let him back in.


He can just sneak across the border like so many others do.

ZAP;1500589 wrote: He can just sneak across the border like so many others do.


Trump sneak? I don't think he knows how to do anything low key. He'd probably call the press to try it on camera.

Zap

Sneak across the border:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl that cracks me up..

Wandrin - your right - he'd call the press. :wah:

Lars

Is it just Mexico or will other Countries make a invite?

Patsy

Hillary's sick - I didn't hear with what?

sorry I caught the end of my news..:-2

Patsy

Mark Aspam;1500227 wrote: I think what he means, td, is that individuals plural can assemble, both legally and logically, but AN individual cannot - it's a contradiction in terms.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


I don't know of any precedent for requiring more than one person to circulate a petition.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Get pulled over while alone driving a car for speeding. The cop wants to search the car. Without probable cause or a warrant, he needs your permission.

The Mexican president invite both candidates down for a visit.

I keep hoping that The Donald will lose his passport, and we can refuse to let him back in.


Dream on.

Passports not required.

The Don keeps knocking crooked Hillary, as well he should, and look in a mirror while he's at it.

No wonder he resists sharing his tax returns.

How Donald Trump retooled his charity to spend other people’s money

Donald Trump was in a tuxedo, standing next to his award: a statue of a palm tree, as tall as a toddler. It was 2010, and Trump was being honored by a charity — the Palm Beach Police Foundation — for his “selfless support of its cause.

His support did not include any of his own money.

Instead, Trump had found a way to give away somebody else’s money and claim the credit for himself.

Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.

The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.

Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.

Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.

On the night that he won the Palm Tree Award for his philanthropy, Trump may have actually made money. The gala was held at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, and the police foundation paid to rent the room. It’s unclear how much was paid in 2010, but the police foundation reported in its tax filings that it rented Mar-a-Lago in 2014 for $276,463.

Washington Post

There is more to in the full article.

Patsy Warnick;1501030 wrote: Hillary's sick - I didn't hear with what?

sorry I caught the end of my news..:-2

PatsyPneumonia.

What's notable is that she was diagnosed and started treatment for pneumonia on Friday and turned up to the public memorial service where she collapsed on Saturday. It has the feel of someone desperately trying to keep a weakness secret and failing rather than someone behaving with a degree of common sense. Getting carted out in front of people was avoidable. If it had been me behaving like that I'd have been frowned on by my relatives and, presumably, my doctor.

spot;1501036 wrote: Pneumonia.

What's notable is that she was diagnosed and started treatment for pneumonia on Friday and turned up to the public memorial service where she collapsed on Saturday. It has the feel of someone desperately trying to keep a weakness secret and failing rather than someone behaving with a degree of common sense. Getting carted out in front of people was avoidable. If it had been me behaving like that I'd have been frowned on by my relatives and, presumably, my doctor.


Total fail. If she just had disclosed her illness I believe everyone would understand.

The Trumphole got into her head and now she feels the necessity to prove her health.

In a way, I admire her determination, but her thinking on this is not clear.

Does she have any advisers who have a clue, or is she like the Trumphole who needs no advice?

The next four years will be interesting times.

Im tipping her reloes are going to tell her to go to bed.

Its a short illness if taken care of properly. I cant believe anyone could take points from someones illness.

Spot

Thanks, it wasn't until this morn. that I saw the news of Hillary nearly collapsing.

I know very few agree with me stating I thought Hillary has a health issue.

I feel this "pneumonia" is a onset to some thing more serious.

I don't have a good feeling about Hillary's condition.

It scares me - it opens the door wide for Trump OMG..

Patsy

FDR ran the country from a wheelchair, I see no reason why Mrs Clinton shouldn't do the same so long as her mind remains as clear as his did. What America has to decide is whether she appears to have eight - or even four - years of mental stamina remaining.

She's not offering to run marathons, she's offering to navigate America over the horizon into unknown territory with no map.

Wearing those blue-tinted spectacles does her no favors either. If people need them they're ill and if they don't need them the tinting is an affectation.

If she does get elected and take office before standing down then Tim Kaine might turn out to be a far more interesting alternative President, so there's no health reason not to vote the pair of them in. And he can appoint absolutely anyone he wants as Vice President, that would be interesting too - it's the only way I can imagine Coolio reaching the Presidency, something I've long advocated. Coolio would make an inspirational President worth ten of any of the others.