Trump outrage of the day

[OtherJen]

Conservatism is what conservatives are doing.

Protecting their access to power by pulling the levers of power--this includes limiting immigration, gerrymandering, and voter suppression, but also reliance on the undemocratic parts of our founding--is their solution to the supposed rise of minority power that many project over the next thirty years.

I guess power makes sense. They're not conserving anything else, certainly not national finances, or the environment, or small government, or even their own arbitrary moral and social standards (see: Trump).

[nereo]

So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.

[Travis]

So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.

Not a grammatical expert, but it seems like bribery goes one way while quid pro quo can go both ways.

"Here's money, do me a favor" vs "do something for me, and I'll do something for you." 

[former player]

So what's the difference between a 'quid-pro-quo' and flat out bribery?

Seems the interactions between are shaping up to be more threatening, less mutual help.

Not a grammatical expert, but it seems like bribery goes one way while quid pro quo can go both ways.

"Here's money, do me a favor" vs "do something for me, and I'll do something for you."

More like a protection racket -

"If you don't go public with fake investigations against Biden and Hilary I'll let the Russians kill your people and take your land."

[nereo]

The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

[GuitarStv]

The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.

[partgypsy]

The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.

yes that seems to be the correct term. Kind of like, if you don't don't pay us to protect your business, something might happen to your nice business. The Mafia found it very profitable.

[Davnasty]

The key in this circumstance is that the aid to Ukraine had already been approved by congress. 
This wasn’t the WH offering to give something in return for something (a quid-pro-quo) - it was a threat to take something away unless they did what they wanted.

That doesn’t seem like it was a two-way street.

That's extortion, not bribery or quid pro quo.

yes that seems to be the correct term. Kind of like, if you don't don't pay us to protect your business, something might happen to your nice business. The Mafia found it very profitable.

I think you could make an argument that all of these terms would apply to what Trump did but also that they don't fully describe his actions.

Quid pro quo means favor for a favor. He's offering the favor of releasing funds to Ukraine but he's not actually the one giving them. Congress has already done that.

Bribery is more or less the same, usually with the understanding that the transaction is illegal.

Extortion is obtaining something through force or threat. Trump isn't directly threatening Ukraine, but he is threatening to put the country in a less protected situation. If he is working directly with Russia, this would be pretty close to what he's doing.

But I still think there must be a more accurate description - withholding something that belongs to someone else in exchange for a favor. Like when a parent gives their kid 2 cookies and says "give one to you brother" but then the first kid tries to trade the cookie for something.

Or basically what Trump has been doing with his charitable foundation for years. Donors give money to the foundation, Trump doles out the money for personal favors.

[nereo]

....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

[Davnasty]

....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that means "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?

[EvenSteven]

....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that mean "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?

Marriage?

[partgypsy]

I think if Trump were re-elected we would really get into, I was holding back for my first term/you aint seen nothing/ hold my beer territory. I'm sure it will be very entertaining but disastrous for the stability of our country.

[GuitarStv]

....I guess?  The arguments being made though sound too much like Ukraine had much of a choice, and that the US didn’t really put anything in jeopardy... kind of like the asinine argument that “guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people, and the bullet is fired by the gun - all the person does is aim and pul the trigger”. 

  I mean, the most adept analogy I can come up with goes something like this:  You own an apartment building with lots of people and there’s a fire.  The fire trucks arrive with the fire chief, and he says “well we can put out the fire, but before we do so I need you to do something for me.”  Meanwhile the building continues to burn and people are quite literally in mortal danger.

That isn’t a favor for a favor, and it seems a bit sick to call that “using leverage” as if this were some business deal where one company might lose more market share.  It does seem like extortion, if not an out-and-out threat that people will die and territory will be lost if you don’t do what is demanded.

I was thinking of a "favor" as simply doing something for someone but this definition:

favor - an act of kindness beyond what is due or usual

does not apply to the discussion at hand or the fire chief analogy. The thing of value being withheld is due.

ETA: So is there a word that means "withholding what is due to until a favor is provided"?

Yes.  Extortion.

Extortion - the practice of obtaining something, through force or threats.

In this case the threat is to withhold what is due.

[Glenstache]

The term is abuse of power, which is almost the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. He used is position of power to attempt to force a foreign power to interfere in US elections to his own personal benefit. There are additional layers of conspiracy in which Giuliani was attempting to leverage access to dirt (true or otherwise, it doesn't matter) from criminals in Europe awaiting extradition to the US in exchange for reducing the threat of extradition to the US. Having Ukraine produce dirt, either though connections to criminal enterprises or the government, also allows Russia to further their claim that they didn't interfere in the 2016 elections, but that it was the Ukranians all along (hence the weird references to a Crowdstrike server). This is obviously not definitive, but it smells a lot like a continuation of 2016 collusion between the Trump camp and Putin.

[talltexan]

I think if Trump were re-elected we would really get into, I was holding back for my first term/you aint seen nothing/ hold my beer territory. I'm sure it will be very entertaining but disastrous for the stability of our country.

I'm constantly offended by the daily scandals, yet I cannot imagine how this would be possible.

The most outrageous thing Trump has floated lately was the G7 summit taking place at Trump Doral, and he back-peddled on that. Do you think he wouldn't back-peddle on that in a second term?

Tea partiers talked about how Obama would really become unconstrained if he got re-elected, but it felt like the opposite happened, that the Senate Republicans found ways to twist the screws in tighter to the point that he really didn't have much political capital to spend.

[partgypsy]

Guitarstv, not so much Trump, but the people around him that makes me feel this way that it's going to be a free for all. There were career and more practical minded people who were holding Trump back from even more missteps and bad judgments, but those people in the 2 years have either resigned or been fired by Trump. The other remaining checks, Trump has been very active in appointing activist judges, the most prominent being Kavanaugh who has now gone on record with his belief that the POTUS while in office can't be prosecuted for ANYTHING (yes, stealing bars from Fort Knox, shooting someone in broad daylight, the argument is him being arrested and prosecuted for that would interfere with his duties as a sitting president, so we can't have that?).
 The third check is Congress. Republicans in congress and the senate, rather than having a clear line, any line that is unacceptable for a president to do, are instead allowing Trump do basically do anything as long as he is not considered a political liability. So, we've lost our checks and balances.
 
Also now that the tax cuts have been enacted, the deficit is inflating at a rapid pace, everything is set up for Republicans to now argue cuts to Medicare and Social security have to happen. Especially when the recession hits and the deficit balloons. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/#163044d23794

[Fireball]

Also now that the tax cuts have been enacted, the deficit is inflating at a rapid pace, everything is set up for Republicans to now argue cuts to Medicare and Social security have to happen. Especially when the recession hits and the deficit balloons. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/#163044d23794

Can I just say, what kind of repulsive monsters are those whose biggest wet dream is depriving the poor and old of the tiny bit of government assistance they use to survive? I'm looking at you, GOP.

[Kris]

Seems appropriate for this thread.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.

[former player]

Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court said in US v Nixon "the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence".

[Kris]

Seems appropriate for this thread.

I'm interested in the  resolution of Vindman's pickle   vis-à-vis his duty under the UCMJ, the doctrine of separation of powers, and Trump's prerogative of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court said in US v Nixon "the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence".

Yeah... integrity-wise, I don't think it's much of a pickle.

[Leisured]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

[former player]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Agreed.  One of the big problems with the news coverage that I've seen so far is that it is framed as "digging up dirt on the Bidens" whereas what is really required of Ukraine is "manufacturing dirt on the Bidens".  That's a whole 'nother layer of fucked up corruption by Trump trying to impose corruption on Ukraine.

[OtherJen]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

I’m an American, and from my perspective your assessment is spot-on.

I think many of us feel helpless. My congressional reps are all Democrats (my House Rep is Rashida Tlaib) so it seems that all I can do is keep supporting them and keep fighting for voter rights and education.

[wenchsenior]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

I’m an American, and from my perspective your assessment is spot-on.

I think many of us feel helpless. My congressional reps are all Democrats (my House Rep is Rashida Tlaib) so it seems that all I can do is keep supporting them and keep fighting for voter rights and education.

Helpless is the word.

Mine are all Republicans, and not one of them will vote to impeach and/or remove (despite at least one of the remove votes being a senator who I am certain despises Trump on a personal level).  In fact, they are flooding my email with messages of how hard they are resisting 'the democrats' witch hunt inquiry' on a weekly basis.

It's party before country here, at all times, for both parties.  There are a bare handful of states/districts where the voter population is truly mixed and voter pressure is actually effective in swaying votes or changing the representation to the competing party (or :snort: a third party).  The bulk of the country is self-sorted and/or gerrymandered so that control by one party is effectively absolute and almost impossible to change.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Gerald Ford (he pardoned Nixon) quipped    that a  ham sandwich can be impeached just for being a ham sandwich.

Ford also stated  that a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives agrees it is  at any given time in history.

Thus, if you agree with Ford as I do,  the House of Representatives  is not bound by what the Framers considered impeachable; it has broad latitude as to which acts or derelictions are and which are not.

[Glenstache]

Australian perspective here. It seems that Trump phoned the Ukrainian president and asked for unfavorable material on Joe Biden's son, or Trump would withhold Congress approved military aid to the Ukraine. Dirt, real or imagined, on Biden's son, or you don't get your military aid. This puts Ukraine in the position of fabricating unfavorable material on Biden's son. This is jaw dropping, and if the GOP does not see this as a problem, the US has a problem.

This is clearly 'high crimes and misdemeanours', as your Constitution puts it.

It is not for me to tell Americans what to do, but I can set the facts as I see them before you.

Gerald Ford (he pardoned Nixon) quipped    that a  ham sandwich can be impeached just for being a ham sandwich.

Ford also stated  that a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives agrees it is  at any given time in history.

Thus, if you agree with Ford as I do,  the House of Representatives  is not bound by what the Framers considered impeachable; it has broad latitude as to which acts or derelictions are and which are not.

The House is bound by what the Framers intended. The contextual meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors includes self dealing and maladministration. The first impeachment cases was John Pickering was a judge who was impeached for showing up to the bench drunk and generally going on like a madman. Strictly illegal things aside, self dealing, suing office to enrich yourself, and abuse of power are all impeachable offenses in the context of the Framer’s intent. The other element is if it is something that is an actual problem for the republic. Undermining faith in the electoral process, or what the bounds of acceptable political behavior, or substituting personal political interests for the national interest (eg, witholding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine to hold back Russia in exchange for generating political damage to Biden) are impeachable. Paying off a porn star with hush money is unethical, but not really a threat to the republic and therefore (in my mind) not impeachable. If the allegations about leveraging a foreign government to create politically damaging situations for a political opponent is true, then it is absolutely impeachable within the Framer’s intent.

A parallel question is the degree to which we allow cynicism to become normalized as a policy and political action baseline. If we strip something like impeachment to ONLY be political and done for political ends, then it creates a dangerous vacuum for executive action in which the only metric is if the congressional majority in a single house happens to like the president. This attitude increases polarization because it sets up a framework in which principled action is the exception and is pre-emptively viewed through a politically cynical lens. As a side note, there is some irony in your handle being John Galt when this very point of view being what Ayn Rand railed against as being normalized. Demanding the principled action even if politically damaging to your own party is what should be the norm.

[Just Joe]

I'm not a very religous person, but I keep praying for an "accident" to save us from enduring any more days under Trump.


He's done more harm to our country than our enemies could have dreamed of.  Most of it never makes the headlines.

I keep hoping he'll have a spoiled brat hissy fit and just quit. Not unlike Sarah Palin who thought being governor was too hard or  - - - whatever.

[John Galt incarnate!]

The House is bound by what the Framers intended. The contextual meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors includes self dealing and maladministration.

James Madison argued against  "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment.

He succeeded in persuading George Mason that "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a preferable clause.

The revolving-door staffing of Trump's Administration is an unacceptable  instability that  is a manifestation of  Trump's most undesirable mercurial tendency.

  I think the Trump Administration's  instability is conspicuous evidence of maladministration that does suffice as grounds for impeachment.

^

This is what I was thinking of when  I posted that the House of Representatives is not bound, is not limited, by what the Framers considered impeachable acts and derelictions.

[Glenstache]

I think this is a common reading of that change in criteria from maladministratin to misdemeanor. However, the argument was made that they did not want to have maladministration default to serving at the pleasure of the Senate, hence the change. Interestingly, the legal references they were using during the framing specifically cited maladministration as a type of misdemeanor. So, the change in criteria was actually a broadening, rather than a narrowing, but took the emphasis away from maladministration.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I think this is a common reading of that change in criteria from maladministratin to misdemeanor. However, the argument was made that they did not want to have maladministration default to serving at the pleasure of the Senate, hence the change. Interestingly, the legal references they were using during the framing specifically cited maladministration as a type of misdemeanor. So, the change in criteria was actually a broadening, rather than a narrowing, but took the emphasis away from maladministration.

Noted.

[nereo]

Nikki Haley seemed to be one of the only Trump appointees who left this administration without being greatly diminished politically / dragged through the mud.  Now with Rex Tillerson firing back after Haley's latest memoir I wonder if that will soon change.

[talltexan]

I used to think the same of Rick Perry, but now it's clear that he was wayyy more caught up in this "Shadow" foreign policy with Ukraine than anyone realized.

[six-car-habit]

 Well, unsure if this is directly attributable to Trump but from todays Reuters article :

 "U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik said the State Department violated federal law by letting Defense Distributed, a Texas-based nonprofit, publish downloadable blueprints for the untraceable, undetectable, mainly plastic firearms, as part of a June 2018 legal settlement.

Lasnik cited the State Department’s prior view that publishing such instructions could threaten U.S. foreign policy, national security and even world peace by enabling criminals, including terrorists outside the United States, to obtain the firearms.

“Against these findings, the federal defendants offer nothing” to support the reversal, the Seattle-based judge wrote. “Because the agency action was arbitrary and capricious, it is unlawful and must be set aside.”

The State Department is reviewing the decision. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the agency, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. "

 and this also from the article :

"“It is baffling that the Trump administration continued to work so hard to allow domestic abusers, felons and terrorists access to untraceable, undetectable 3D-printed guns,” Washington state’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, said in a statement.

He said Republican President Donald Trump tweeted one day after the July 2018 lawsuit was filed that he was looking into the public sale of 3-D guns and had spoken to the National Rifle Association, and said the guns did not “seem to make much sense!”

“I’m thankful the court agrees,” said Ferguson, a Democrat.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia were among the more populous states to join Ferguson’s lawsuit.

Defense Distributed had argued that the earlier ban violated its constitutional rights to free speech and to bear arms under the First and Second Amendments. It had hoped to make its blueprints available to the public in August 2018. "

 What, the companies free speech has been curtailed ??  detailed plans for weapons qualifies ??  I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

[nereo]

...I guess I would find 'untraceable, easily accessibly' 3D printed guns to be more of a problem if it wasn't already so easy for just about anyone to purchase a firearm with little to no scrutiny and little to no accountability.

put another way: who cares about illegal 3D printed guns when you can get aa traditional one even easier?

[talltexan]

What's the quality like on these 3D-printed guns?

I remember an episode of "The Rifle Man" with a guy who said he hated ever firing a gun because of how it altered its condition. Can these plastic ones fire more than 3-5 rounds? Seems like a 5-use gun would remove a lot of the mass-shooting concerns.

[Davnasty]

What's the quality like on these 3D-printed guns?

I remember an episode of "The Rifle Man" with a guy who said he hated ever firing a gun because of how it altered its condition. Can these plastic ones fire more than 3-5 rounds? Seems like a 5-use gun would remove a lot of the mass-shooting concerns.

https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/worlds-first-fully-3-d-printed-gun-here/

the test version fired 6 shots (out of a magazine of 10) before breaking.
[]
A later design [] fired 600 rounds just fine.

Article is from 2013

[Glenstache]

The cynic in me suspects the NRA thinks these guns "don't make much sense" because they take business away from existing manufacturers... and it is pretty clear that the NRA is primarily interested in gun sales these days and has wandered very far from where it was in the 60s and before.

[John Galt incarnate!]

   I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

[nereo]

   I think the 2nd amendment says, a citizen has a right to bear arms, as part of a well regulated militia [ nor is the word gun or firearm found in the amendment] . I suppose DefenseDistributed owners and employees are all part of the National Guard ?  Because none of the 2nd amendment "boosters" that i'm acquainted with are in any sort of regulated militia....

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

Further, I believe it was allso in DC v Heller that Scalia wrote in his opinion that no right afforded to a citizen in the constitution is so absolute that reasonable restrictions cannot be placed upon it by the legislature.  As an example, tt is perfectly legitimate to restrict the sale of howitzers to a person even though he has a constititonal right to bear arms.

[John Galt incarnate!]

no right afforded to a citizen in the constitution is so absolute that reasonable restrictions cannot be placed upon it by the legislature.

Yes.

When discussing exercise of constitutional rights, "No constitutional right may be exercised absolutely," is the watchword to keep in mind.

[PKFFW]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

[Kyle Schuant]

I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

[nereo]

I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Are you suggesting, again, that it is “the people for whom things aren’t working” who are Trump’s core supporters? Because we have gone over multiple times why that is erroneous.

There is lots to change to help the disenfranchised and downtrodden, but it’s a mistake to suggest that years of ignoring them has led to our current president.

[Glenstache]

I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

That piece also felt like a bubble of libertarian smugness. "If only people would separate into their own states and magically agree to compromise, everything would be okay." This also somehow manages to attempt to blame PG&E's poor maintenance (a failure of unfettered capitalism, if anything ideological is to be invoked there) on progressive policies in California. The only thing it was really missing was over use of the phrase "cognitive dissonance", the irony of which usage is usually lost on the author.

[Travis]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.

[talltexan]

I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Thread creator here. Can you go into more detail about why you concluded this was the intent of this thread?

[nereo]

I realise the intent of this thread was to create a little comfortable bubble of agreement, but read the below. The guy is very much lefty and socialist, but unlike many such people, he actually looks outside his own comfortable lifestyle and recognises that there are people for whom things just aren't working.

https://www.ecosophia.net/dancers-at-the-end-of-time-part-three-a-mortal-splendor/

Thread creator here. Can you go into more detail about why you concluded this was the intent of this thread?

As Glenstache pointed out, the author of the article Kyle linked (John Michael Greer) is not a ‘leftist socialist.’  He’s a self described moderate conservative and has libertarian-leanings. There’s nothing in his writings to suggest he is a socialist. As a Druid-priest he’s deeply concerned about shifts in the natural world.

[GuitarStv]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.

Actually, the choice of language isn't confusing.  It's pretty straight forward.

"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."

Since a well regulated militia is necessary for security, people should be allowed to have weapons.

If you're bending over backwards to conclude that it was intended to allow private individuals to always have weapons irrespective of their status as militiamen . . . that's when it suddenly gets confusing.  Because that's a very different interpretation than the language written.

[Travis]

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a landmark Second Amendment case, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms"  is an individual right that is not connected with service in  a militia.

The Court ruled  that firearms  may be kept in the home for the purpose of self-defense and owned or possessed for other lawful purposes such as hunting, target shooting, and collecting.

Under Heller, restriction of   "dangerous and unusual" firearms is not an infringement of the Second Amendment.

IANAL but I must say, it still boggles my mind the amount of mental gymnastics it must have taken to come up with a rational argument as to why an entire part of the 2nd Amendment should be ignored so as to make the case that it is an individual right.  Especially coming from someone such as Scalia who always claimed to be of the position that one must adhere to the original framer's intent.

This was mentioned in the Vegas mass shootings discussion here, but the idea of the 2nd Amendment applying to individuals rather than "the militia" goes back to Supreme Court cases from the very early 1800s and throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  I'm not disagreeing that their choice of words is confusing, but pointing out that this is definitely not something new.

Actually, the choice of language isn't confusing.  It's pretty straight forward.

"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."

Since a well regulated militia is necessary for security, people should be allowed to have weapons.

If you're bending over backwards to conclude that it was intended to allow private individuals to always have weapons irrespective of their status as militiamen . . . that's when it suddenly gets confusing.  Because that's a very different interpretation than the language written.

The Supreme Court has been saying precisely that since 1811.  Paraphrasing: An able-bodied militia is a product of an individual right to bear arms rather than a militia being a prerequisite for individuals to bear arms.