Wisconsin anti-abortion group targeted in Molotov cocktail arson attack: police
Graffiti outside Wisconsin Family Action's office reads: 'if abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either'

A Wisconsin anti-abortion group said Sunday someone tossed a Molotov cocktail into its Madison office and spray-painted a message outside reading, "if abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either."

Local reporters from outlets including WISC-TV, the Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said they visited the office for Wisconsin Family Action on Sunday and shared photos and videos of the apparent arson attack. A shattered window had since been boarded up, and images showed fire damaged furniture and burned books littering the floor of the office.

The exterior of the building was tagged in cursive: "if abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either."

read more at
https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-anti-abortion-group-molotov-cocktail-arson-attack

Activist group threatens to 'burn Eucharist' in display of 'disgust' toward Catholics: 'Bigotry'
The organization expressed 'disgust' for the Catholic Church

Pro-choice group Ruth Sent Us, a reference to late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, threatened to burn the Eucharist in response to a Twitter user who offered to pray for them after they called for protests at Catholic churches and justices' homes.

"Stuff your rosaries and your weaponized prayer. We will remain outraged after this weekend, so keep praying. We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries," tweeted the organization, which has called on abortion supporters to protest at Catholic churches across the country over the Mother's Day weekend.

St. Joseph's Catholic Church and St. Peter's Church Catholic Church, both of which are on Capitol Hill, reportedly requested increased police presence amid fears that protesters will attempt to disrupt Sunday morning Mass.

read more at
https://www.foxnews.com/us/activist-group-threatens-burn-eucharist-display-disgust-catholics

Got to agree with you 40, the violence has begun. It started with an all out assault on women's rights and norms in this country. Now cities will burn, people will die, all in the name of Christian religious righteousness. All I'll say is stupid is as stupid does; GOPers, you asked for any violence that comes. You can't steam roll 70% of the country, shoving your religious crap and personal beliefs down their throats and expect zero backlash or reaction. This summer will be bad for all of us now.

All of the divides can be traced back to GOPer BS. All of it. So when they get around to coming for you, don't call me.

Not cool bro.

What's not cool? Telling it like it is? Do you think the left isn't going to march and those won't have riots? PUH-lease... And coming for what matters to them, to me? Nah, I won't be calling for an end to anything that fights fascism. And if you are still out there trying to die on this hill, I can't help you. Y'all opened a can of whoop ass! You pissed of 90% of the women in the country! You f'd around, now y'all 'bout to find out.

It's scary to know that he is a real person and not some psycho fictional character. And people will overlook it if they belong to the same political party. Whacked!

QFT!

But it's the other party that's crazy. Fiction couldn't muster the artistic liberty to even think some of the stuff he types for the whole world to see.

Some people have no shame or conscience.

Whats not cool is you sounding like one of those insane donkeys who would bomb an abortion clinic and claim... "well they deserved it" "They asked for it" Come on man your better than that.

Not sure which is funnier...

1. The irony of naming the group after RBG
2. The ridiculously stupid phrase of "weaponized prayer".

I used to be better than not giving a damn, but the right doesn't leave any room for that these days. And me telling you that cities will burn and people will die is nothing more than what I see coming. Just like the 6th, GOPers caused this too. I'm just reading the temperature of my side, comparing to BLM. This is going to be way worse, because I have NEVER seen so many so pissed. And yeah, we're friends, but we couldn't be more opposed than we are on this. The violence and deaths to come fall on your camp bro. Your side did this. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a pretty good read on the left most of the time. And I don't get crazy clinic bomber from anything I said, so that was just wrong to say. You just bring out the trolls with that.

Nobody is forcing anyone to violence. Peaceful protest is a means by which you address your grievances. Once you step over the line to violence you have made the choice to commit criminal activity and committing a crime. No matter which party you support or which cause you're taking up, at that point you are wrong.

Protests at Justice Kavanaugh's home 'one of the scariest things I've ever witnessed,' says reporter
Blair, a news producer at The Daily Signal, called the demonstrations an 'attempt at intimidation'

Douglas Blair, a news editor for The Daily Signal, said the pro-choice protests outside Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's home were "one of the scariest things" he's ever witnessed. On "Fox & Friends" Monday, he called the protests an "attempt at intimidation" and pointed out the Biden administration's failure to condemn the demonstrations.

DOUGLAS BLAIR: This is an attempt at intimidation. And I think it really says a lot, too, that the Biden administration is willing to absolutely let these justices out to dry. They're not going to say, 'It's not acceptable for you to go to somebody's house and yell and scream.' That's not how we do it in this country. …

I did not see Justice Kavanaugh. My hope is that he wasn't home. My hope is that he was safe with his family somewhere else because it was genuinely one of the scariest things I've ever witnessed. Watching these people yell and scream and try and change the vote of what is most possibly the most important vote in the history of this country: the right to live your life and to have a human being survive in the womb.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/justice-kavanaugh-home-protests-abortion-roe-wade-blair


So once again the Left has turned it's Brown Shirts loose.

Brown shirts, lmao. You making Nazi references is just priceless, after the ish you and your ilk brought upon us.

No what happened is a form of protest. A very bad man was made to see his mistakes. A man who shouldn't even be on the court was reminded of that. A man who attacks women, then tries to take their rights, was reminded who he is. I'm glad protests are starting and this holier than thou bubble is about the blow up in your faces. I think a dose of reality is far past due.

Yes, it is true that no one threw a fire bomb this time.

Good show!

I too am happy that nobody was hurt, well except GOPer pride.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "and the violence begins"

The country has a history that is littered with bombed clinics, doctors killed, intimidation and all sorts of criminal behavior.

Escalation on either side is inappropriate, but I would suggest that this is one of the rare cases where "for" has targeted "against"

Don't concern yourself too much as it is all just to distract us from the out of control gas and food prices.

I should clarify something. There are hateful souls on both sides. I loathe them all. Committing violent hate crimes against others because of varying political, social, religious, gender, etc, etc preferences is unacceptable.

Perhaps I am naive, but I think most people are good at their core. I believe we should unite and not allow those w/hate in their hearts to destroy our civilization. Unprovoked violence is wrong and an act against humanity. Now, if someone spits on your mother, knock his ass out. But, all this other stuff is completely unacceptable and I think we should continue to evolve and stamp out such hateful and ignorant beliefs.

Has anyone ever considered that the game plan is to keep us split and at each others throats?

Pit has.
I have.

We both quote our dads when we mention such things.

Not only have I considered it, I actually believe it to be true.

So the next question for both of you is WHO has made this plan?

Why is it so important to place blame? Why is it not more important to learn from mistakes and improve ourselves as a whole? I really despise this "Got-cha" mentality. Be part of the solution rather than compounding the problem.

Calm down.

I was thinking this game plan of keeping us at each others throats come from a much higher place than just us.

It has been going on for decades over different administrations.

I was thinking it is someone's Master Plan, like maybe the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about.

I am not upset, 40. I'm just saying that anyone who knows history understands that the ruling class has utilized the weapon of turning the masses against one another in order to hold them down while they continue to reap the rewards of their corruption that is fueled by greed.

And I would like to know who the ruling class is.

Our own Oligarchs?

You already know the answer. Not here to argue. Just stating my opinion that violence against others based on ideals and the like is wrong. May peace find a place in your heart.

No, I don't know the answer, that is why I asked.

I guess I should just go away happy at this half discussion with the knowledge nobody yelled TRUMP!

Peace.

Sure it is. Your side put it all in action... Tea Party Patriots. The hate and divisions grew from there, Trump was the super fertilizer. And everything the right is doing is divisive. You could have come to the table and negotiated all of this, but your side decided to cheat. So now were are on the verge of tearing it all down, to build a better Republic. And I wish we could build a better Republic starting with individual guaranteed rights. Women's rights, gay rights, trans rights, voting rights, civil rights, religious rights, right to life, right to die, right to do with your own bodies and minds what you wish. Then move on to communities and states. Our current EVERYTHING; the economy, legal rights, political parties/system, stc., are not working for the majority of Americans. It's time to have a constitutional convention.

And why did the people vote in the Tea Party?

What were they sent as an answer to?

We have a hybrid capitalist corporatocracy/oligarchy/wannabe theocracy. All the billionaires, millionaires, lawmakers, religious zealots, and mega corps fall neatly into that basket. What we need is more socialist capitalist checks and balances that makes sure our government works for the working people, and not JUST those with wealth/access.

Electing a black man. But the cover story was taxation. Just saying, since it looks like we are all being truthful and having actual dialogue. I'm sure it was sold to them as patriotic and the right thing to do, by right-wing media/leaders. But Obama wasn't born in Africa, was a citizen, and had every right to be POTUS.

Just stop.

It was in answer to Obama spending the country into bankruptcy and the Democrats boondoggle health plan that needed to be voted on before anyone could read it crap.

And 40, I also think there is a cabal behind much of this. No idea who they are, just like when the fed was created, I expect a bunch of rich men got in a private room and decided to destroy it all for whatever change they are seeking. I think we've been on this course since the late 70s when corporate greed dictated that they sell us out to get cheap foreign labor. Then the whole "global economy" thing intrigued and encouraged the .1% to set a course to further hurt Americans by lifting other economies (third world markets), at our expense (jobs and opportunities) to 'even' out the world markets and GDPs. They did this by sending our opportunities and jobs to countries with super cheap labor, then sold those products to us. This RAPE of our economy shifted massive wealth to China, India, Mexico, and other countries we wanted to partner with. Almost 50 years of this has taken its toll on our 'richest country in the world' status, by reducing our overall wealth and buying power significantly. To offset this loss of power for the elite, they just took a bigger and bigger share of the pie. That's how CEO pay went from ten times the average worker, to hundreds of times the average wage earners pay. This is why we are where we are if you ask me. Greed, lust for wealth, and zero thought for the working class.

Well that's the bill of goods your side was sold anyway. It's also when people stopped caring about facts and started to believe only what they wanted to believe. I'm not pointing fingers at you and am trying to have an actual convo, but some crap is just so obvious it can't be just overlooked. I think the anti-Obama stuff was when the right realized they could harness the bases racism, and that plan took shape.

Sounds like you are talking about America's own Oligarchs.

I wonder too. Lots of odd things out there. Food shortages cropping up.

Recently found out who is the largest owner of farmland in America.

HA! Had to google that one. Bill Gates! Would never have thought of that, but found a pretty good article speculating why: https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/why-bill-gates-is-now-the-us-biggest-farmland-owner/

But I'm with you on the shortages. Workers, oil, shipping, truckers, etc. shortages always seem to hit the working class with the extra costs, meanwhile mega corps like big oil companies report record profits, gouging at the pumps. I can't remember the last time a mega OIL corp reported massive losses. Can you? That's not how markets work, nobody wins big consistently without cheating. I sometimes question if any of it IS NOT RIGGED.

OCD

The deflection trap is a nefarious strategy to change the course of discussion.

The topic of the thread involves violence and abortion, so let’s keep on topic and not get sidetracked.

And he's stated he's all for violence IF something goes against his liking.

Meh, he's calling protests against the right wing court members violence. What's new? They fear everything that is not a lay up for them. Having people they pissed off in their faces scares the hell out of them. It is what it is. I'd rather talk about things we can agree on for one minute here and there. My rage and anger with the right can't grow any more, but hate gets old af, and I like 40, but not Trumpian troll 40... if that makes sense. He can be a good dude when he chooses, and he can have real dialogue, when he chooses.

Neither side leaves room for that anymore, because both sides scream me, me, me, not US US US like they should. BOTH sides act like spoiled brats.


I have no problem with that part.... I agree


Now you know how those who are against abortion have felt for many years.


I see that as a good chance to show others that friends can agree and disagree without taking things personal or letting a disagreement ruin a friendship.




That's the part of your comments I strongly disagree with. That sounds just like something a abusive husband says after he beats his wife or kids. YOU MADE ME DO IT, It's your fault I beat you because you wouldn't act like I wanted you too. That's the part I pointed out when I said your better than that. Now please don't take that the wrong way like you did with my comment about a bomber. I am not saying you ever abused a spouse, or any kids. I'm saying your laying the blame on others for any violence that others do to them. It's just wrong bro.

Federal U.S. code 1507, states that any individual who "pickets or parades" with the "intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer" near a U.S. court or "near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer" will be fined, or "imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

But no action from the Justice Department or the Biden administration because the issue and the agenda, are more important than the Law.

Just another form of violence, aiding and abetting on their part.

The divide continues.

The math here is quite simple. This goes back much further than Trump. It's just that before Trump, making every attempt to keep our people divided wasn't shouted out loud. It wasn't made so obvious. In that regard I guess for those actually paying attention it was a blessing.

When a small minority of people maintain the vast majority of the wealth, keeping those with much less divided is your safety net. Keeping the poor and middle class thinking they are the enemy of each other keeps the attention off of you. And I'm not one to be fooled into thinking that all of the wealthy belong to one party or the other. I'm also not naive enough to think all of the wealthy are that way. Raising a man's wage to the point he can afford to live is not your enemy. Billionaires having baked in tax loopholes preventing them from paying their share of taxes is. Healthcare for all isn't your enemy. Lobbyists making sure we all pay more for prescription drugs and have the highest healthcare costs on the globe are.

People need to figure out who the real enemy is here and stop being distracted by the talking heads.

The divides go back to the Boston tea party, but to keep in in modern context., probably the vietnam war and civil rights protests is where the current divides are rooted. I am not taking any side on those issues other than to say that is where it seems the divide in public opinions started.

Very well said Sir.

Amen to that. So... where do we start?

The first step is for people to admit that "their side", whichever that might be, isn't always right.
Next step is acknowledging that the "other side" isn't always wrong.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever even get there.
A while back I started a thread asking pro trumpers to list one thing they didn't like about trump and anti trumpers to say something positive about him.
3-4 anti trumpers said something positive. Not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative.

Way to get the ball rolling....LOL

I think some peeps really have comprehension issues. Apparently if you make a genuine attempt to get people of differing sides to find some common ground as a starting point for discussion and it doesn't work - you get mocked around here!

Not the 1st time i've been mocked. Pretty sure it won't be the last!

The Anti-Abortion Movement Has a Long History of Terrorism. A Roe Repeal Will Make It Worse.

In the face of the recent leak of a draft opinion that confirmed the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion advocates and providers are bracing for a surge in clinic violence.

In the face of Monday’s unexpected leak of a draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito that confirmed that the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion advocates and providers are bracing for a surge in clinic violence. In a Wednesday call, officials with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security raised concerns about an increase in violent rhetoric from far-right aggressors in the wake of the draft opinion’s release. And private intelligence groups have released reports detailing violent reactions and threats to bomb clinics and hurt pro-abortion protestors on far-right online forums in response to the draft leak.

For nearly 50 years, as anti-abortion legislators in states around the country have chipped away at the constitutional right to a safe and legal abortion, they have done so with the steady drumbeat of violence at their back.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the most recent attack on the constitutional right to abortion last December. The question in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is whether Mississippi’s ban on pre-viability abortions is constitutional. Under the Supreme Court precedent set by Roe v. Wade in 1973 and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, the answer is clearly no.

Though violence and threats of violence directed against abortion providers have been a prominent aspect of abortion in the United States since Roe was decided, anti-abortion legislators would like to ignore this history. Instead, they try to frame the history of post-Roe abortion as a “hard issue” and one of mere “controversy” that should be settled by these same state legislators. But decades of violence make clear that the debate over abortion in America isn’t a matter of some “civil disagreement.” It is the subject of unrelenting attacks by those who have no regard for the rule of law.


In the decision expected within the next few months, if the Supreme Court overturns or severely guts Roe v. Wade, it will send an unmistakable and dangerous message: that the violence against abortion providers has worked.



Mississippi provides a dramatic illustration of how extremists have employed violence and other lawlessness to reduce access to abortion. After a rapid expansion of abortion services in Mississippi in the years immediately following Roe, anti-abortion extremists waged a campaign that included stalking, intimidation and violence against doctors who provided abortion care.

This campaign was not isolated or sporadic but sustained and pervasive. The campaign of violence and threats was effective, coinciding with a sharp decline in the provision of and access to abortion services in Mississippi. In fact, Jackson Women’s Health Organization—now the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi and the target of the law at issue in Dobbs—was established in response to the clinic closures that resulted from this anti-abortion violence. At the time of its founding, only one other provider offered abortions for Mississippi residents.

Although Mississippi stands at the heart of the current attack on the constitutional right to abortion, violence against reproductive health providers and clinics has cast a shadow across the entire country. March 10, 1993, marked the first-known time in the U.S. that an anti-abortion extremist committed murder. Michael Griffin joined an anti-abortion protest at a reproductive healthcare clinic in Pensacola, Fla., and then fatally shot Dr. David Gunn in the back as the doctor was walking into the clinic.

Just over a year after Gunn was murdered, Dr. John Britton and Ret. Lt. Col. James Barrett, a volunteer clinic escort and a veteran of World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars, were gunned down in the parking lot of another Pensacola clinic. Barrett’s wife, who saw her husband and Britton murdered, was shot in the arm.


In December 1994, an anti-abortion extremist opened fire on two clinics in Massachusetts, killing both clinics’ receptionists—Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols—and wounding five others. In 1998, Eric Rudolph, who bombed the Olympic Games, a clinic, and a lesbian and gay bar in Atlanta, detonated a bomb at a clinic in Birmingham, Ala., killing off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson, who served as a security guard at the clinic, and critically injuring a nurse. In 1998, a sniper murdered Dr. Barnett Slepian in front of his family as he was standing in the kitchen of his home in upstate New York.

On a Sunday at the end of May 2009, Dr. George Tiller was attending services at his church in Wichita, Kan., when anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder entered the church, raised a gun to Tiller’s forehead and shot him at point-blank range. Tiller had survived being shot in both arms by a different anti-abortion extremist in 1993.

Most recently, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. traveled to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colo., with four SKS rifles, five handguns, two additional rifles, a shotgun, more than 500 rounds of ammunition and propane tanks, intending to wage “war” on the clinic because it offered abortion services. Dear shot at six peo- ple outside the clinic, killing two and injuring three more. He then shot his way into a clinic entrance while 27 healthcare providers, employees, patients and their companions attempted to hide, one of whom was shot during the course of the attack.

In the approximately five-hour standoff that ensued, Dear turned his weapons on law enforcement, shooting and killing one officer and injuring four more. In total, Dear fired 198 bullets during the attack. According to Dear’s documented interview with the police, he was “happy with what he had done because his actions … ensured that no more abortions would be conducted at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.”

The murders are, of course, the highest-profile examples of violence against reproductive health providers and clinics, but they alone don’t come close to telling the full story of the unrelenting, daily violence and harassment that anti-abortion extremists visit on providers and clinics. Attempted murder, death threats, stalking, kidnapping, bombings and arson are a routine part of life for providers and clinics.

And disturbingly, studies show that violence and threats have not only continued in recent years, but have risen.

A steady stream of examples illustrates the ever-present risk to providers, patients, staff and the public. In 2019, a 17-year-old in Texas was arrested after threatening to “commit jihad on an abortion clinic.” An Ohio man was charged with threatening to assault federal law enforcement officers after he made online threats against Planned Parenthood and others; authorities recovered more than a dozen rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition from his home.

In 2020, a Rhode Island man was sentenced to federal prison for stalking and sending threats after he threatened to torture and kill a university professor who supported abortion rights, and left more than 100 threatening voice mails for a clinic. And in 2021, a Delaware man pleaded guilty to federal charges after he threw a Molotov cocktail through a clinic’s window and painted a slogan associated with white supremacist groups on the clinic’s wall.

Anti-abortion extremists have employed and continue to employ violence and threats as part of a deliberate strategy to reduce or eliminate abortion, with a concerning number of anti-abortion extremists openly endorsing violence. Shortly after Gunn was murdered by Griffin in 1993, a statement signed by 34 extremists was released, stating:


Over the years since, several more versions of the statement were released, each time adding more extremists as signers.

Anti-abortion extremists have also expanded the targets of their violence beyond abortion providers. A number of prominent anti-abortion extremists were among those who participated in the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Individuals interviewed outside the Capitol that day cited their anti-abortion views as the reason they traveled to Washington, D.C., with one person explaining that her decision to come to the Capitol was, in part, “to fight for the unborn.” Another extremist who filmed himself at the Capitol that day was previously convicted of planning to bomb an abortion clinic in 1988, and later admitted to setting fire to that clinic and another.

Violence has also been directed toward the Supreme Court. A shot was fired through the window of Justice Harry Blackmun’s home following years of death threats that began when he wrote the Court’s decision in Roe.

Extremists have used these acts of violence and other illegal tactics to further their goal of stopping abortion by reducing or eliminating access to abortion services, which disproportionately impacts low-income women, women of color and teenage girls. Over time, the violence has contributed to a substantial reduction in the number of clinics as well as the number of physicians and other clinic staff able and willing to perform abortions. Many doctors trained to provide abortion care opt not to do so to avoid subjecting themselves to harassment and violence, and other trained providers are leaving the practice due to the stress and burdens of living with the constant threat of violence.

As one doctor explained, she stopped providing abortions altogether because she was attacked on the internet and “hunted down by protesters” who broke into her home and left behind dead animals.


There is a real risk that overturning Roe would further embolden extremists to engage in violence in their crusade to end abortion in the United States. While some states would ban all or nearly all abortions if Roe is overturned, many states would continue to allow abortion, and there is little question that providers in those states would remain targets of violence.

After all, extremist violence has not been confined to those jurisdictions that would be expected to curtail abortion rights if Roe is overturned. Six of the murders committed by anti-abortion extremists occurred in jurisdictions that would likely preserve access to abortion: Colorado, Massachusetts and New York. If anti-abortion sentiments are unable to sway legislators in some states to ban abortion outright, there are very real reasons to be concerned that extremists—who for decades have disregarded the rule of law and legitimate political process—will take matters into their own hands.

The Feminist Majority Foundation (publisher of Ms.) and a number of other women’s and civil rights organizations, represented by pro bono counsel John Hall, Elizabeth Saxe, David Zionts, Kate Thompson, Molly Doggett, Marisa Tashman and Megan Keenan of Covington & Burling LLP, filed an amicus brief with the Court last fall in Dobbs to ensure that this long, devastating history of violence is not ignored as the Supreme Court considers the most serious challenge to the constitutional right to abortion care in a generation.

In 1992, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe in Casey, it said it could not “overrule [precedent] under fire.” Overturning Roe now would, whatever the Court intends or says, be perceived as rewarding anti-abortion extremists’ violent acts and would undermine the rule of law. In Casey, the Court refused to overrule a landmark precedent under threat of violence. It should not do so now, a generation later, when even more anti-abortion violence has become an undeniable part of our nation’s history.

https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/06/anti-abortion-violence-terrorism-roe-v-wade/

I can't help wondering where the GOPer cries of violence were when these things happened... And watching Fox have a faux breakdown over protests at Justices homes... Small peaceful protests are the mob/thugs/extremists, while January 6th was site seeing or barely a blip... wtaf is wrong with GOPers?

I wasn't mocking you. I just thought it was funny that you talked about sides and then pointed to an example of how your side was willing to work w/the other, and how the other side wasn't. You have to admit that is pretty funny, right? Especially if the intent is for both "sides" to work things out.

Personally, I don't care for "sides." I want what is best for my family and for all of us. This forum is an example of how "sides" can be so debilitating to our society. The amount of energy spent on trashing the other "side" is astounding and meanwhile, the divide continues to grow. The powers that be laugh down upon us as their stranglehold on the minions grows tighter. Some of us were talking about when all this started and I saw different answers like Colonial Boston and Vietnam. I thought its genesis was long before that as it was clearly evident during the Feudal Era. The tiers of wealth all the way down to the peons created factions among the people that were irreparable, divisive, and designed to elevate some and keep others down. Unfortunately, many among us have been unable to learn from the sins of others and are actually instruments in our own undoing.

Well, for that matter it probably started when the bigger caveman took the smaller caveman's wife to his cave. For me I was keeping it geared towards our country.

No doubt divides run along many different fronts and not doubt the media exposes those differences, then caters to them for their profit.

The current divide has been going on for a long time and I do feel that the media has played a big role in that. Eisenhower was the last President that pretty much everybody respected. Not everybody voted for him, but they mostly respected him. That was also when TV was still fairly young. Since JFK was elected we have had deep divides over the President and thus, the political parties.

It seems to be pretty much an attitude of "Us and Them".

I think your point about the media is huge. The media bias is so upsetting. I can't even listen or read their crap at this point.

It wasn't an attempt at common ground. At the time it read like a joke to me... particularly when he called out certain posters to participate.



BTW... "Not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative." is not accurate. Only three "pro trumpers" participated and two certainly did say something negative. Besides, what's the point of referencing a silly Dawgtalkers post from two years prior an indicator that one side won't play fair?

Basically he's saying "both sides need to put aside their prejudices and try to work together, unfortunately one side is a bunch of a-holes"

Seems productive, right?

And Vers, your post is spot-on, again.

I wasn't pointing out that one side was willing to work and the other wasn't. I was being factual and pointing out that only 3 posters all of the members could stomach acknowledging anything opposite their stance, no matter how small.

Fate, you say I "called out" certain posters. I call it challenging the most vocal. Whatever, but I did it to both sides.
This is an example of twisting things to fit a personal agenda because you don't want to actually have a conversation.

I took his original post in the spirit in which I believe it was intended. Jester is an excellent and non combatative poster.

Referring back to his original attempt wasn't being snarky, just factual.

A personal agenda? lmao

Speaking of agenda, why did you say "not a single pro trumper could come up with anything negative" when the fact was that two of three did?

I'll make this short and sweet. Using a Dawgtalkers topic in which ten people participated as some indication that the right doesn't want to work with the left is about as lame as can be. It would be different if participation was compulsory and there was some laundry list of wingnuts that insisted their $%# didn't stink, but that example couldn't be further from the truth.

I was going by memory but the only negative thing about trump I remember was a snarky remark about how he didn't get rid of enough liberals in government. If you want to count thast as a serious criticism so be it. Maybe they came in after I gave up on the thread.

I'll try to address your question but my opinion on the matter isn't pretty.

To start off with I'll say I don't know if there's anything we can do. That's pretty much the answer in a nut shell. On the surface you might think I would say that it's the Democrats who are for taxing the billionaires, national healthcare, capping prescription drug prices and things like overturning Citizens United. That's certainly the picture they try to portray and what they say. But is that really true? I mean when you know that there's no chance in hell any of that would pass into law, it makes it easy to pander to your voters by simply saying it. But those same Democrats in most cases accept that same dark money, they bow to lobbyists and do the same things they claim to be against. Just for a different set of interests. So I'm very suspect in their sincerity.

Republicans outright fight against these things. They label the very things that would help all Americans as socialist or communist and that line seem to work well for them.

The situation can be compared to an old saying, "There's a Fox in the hen house". Only in this case the hen house is full of Foxes. Those foxes are writing the laws. They write them to benefit themselves and their future. They write them to cater to their voters to remain in power. They write them to secure jobs after they leave office from the very interests that lobbied for their support while in office.

I wish I had an answer to your question. But the only things I can come up with are why I believe it may be impossible for us to find an answer.

Yeah, it was kind of like that on both sides. But hey, at least you tried. And there was nothing wrong with the effort -- I'm not criticizing that at all.

My opinion? I think most of the reason people on the right don't post much here is the absolute fake outrage from a few posters on the left.

I mean, let's be honest, simply expressing any conservative POV in this forum will likely result in a barrage of name-calling, sarcasm, buddy-buddy banter and downright vitriol... many times shifting the subject to things you aren't even talking about. So, what's the point? If I wanted to argue with a bunch of screaming faces, I'd jog down to the local daycare center and snatch away all their juice boxes.


There was a recent poll about "political alignments", it showed that *readers* (not necessarily regular posters) are basically split down the middle. It was in response to someone stating that this board is "basically 90% left".

Why is it that most conservatives and moderates don't care to engage in the conversation??

What you have chosen to do is ignore the fact that there are people on both sides that do that exact same thing. I guess you must have missed how the names communists and socialists get tossed around on here. I think if you actually sat back and counted those who generally spoke out on both the conservative, liberal and moderate views you would see that all sides are pretty equally represented. For every OCD you have there's a Superbrown and 40. I think you are being impacted more by the comments being made by those on the extreme left while ignoring much of the comments posted by the extreme right.

I don't think any 'side' has the moral high ground. I think both 'sides' have posters who write extreme viewpoints. Neither side is without it's idiots and agitators. I think it's all too easy to get tired or frustrated - or have a 10 seconds to write a response and fall into a trap of mimicking what we don't like in the other 'side' ... doing it to make a point, but that point gets lost and the other 'side' who take that response at face value.

Where do we start ? What do we do about it ?? Per Fate's question (that I only just saw). Hell if I know. The biggest issue I see is lack of accountability and apathy. We have the government we the people deserve because we the people aren't paying attention and most don't care ... and those that are paying attention are distracted and fighting instead of educating and engaging and advocating more transparency in Government and every walk of life. If political shenanigans happen that benefit what we think is our side - we don't question or comment on the ethicality of how we got there, just celebrate the "victory" and move on. No-where is this more evident than in the Garland/Gorsuch/Barrett debacle. Reprehensible on every level by any neutral standard ... but "Politics Baby".

Good post. To piggyback off that and Pit's posts (good stuff), it seems like the first common-sense solutions (that nobody "fights" for) would be term limits and getting the almighty corporate dollar out of politics. The reason he says "not much we can do" is, at it's root level, because we are too fat, happy and lazy to stand up for these simple solutions. The bait and switch is pulled in every election cycle so that we fight over the morsels they throw us to keep us divided. It's a fail-proof strategy (to this point) that allows them to conduct business as usual.

As far as how that relates to this board, and all of social media, is the simple fact that the most vocal always seem to be at the extremes. Sadly, many people believe that this is an actual pulse for how people feel. Quite the contrary... most in the middle don't have the energy or desire to be forced to choose a side in order to have an actual voice. Crazy times, indeed.

For the record, I am not a democrat, even though it may not seem that way. I have always been an independent and pre trump I actually leaned republican on most things. In fact, if the presidential elections were held today and you could vote for anybody, 4 of my top 5 candidates are republicans.

I am however very anti trump. And I lost a lot of respect for the republican party for how they bow down in supplication to trump.
I am also very anti far right and anti far left.

I agree with your post almost entirely. The only caveat I have is the part about "we are too fat, happy and lazy to stand up for these simple solutions" in wanting term limits. I actually think for the most part Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters as a whole want term limits. There are exceptions of course. I think the biggest issue there is getting elected officials to agree with it. You do bring up a good point that voters often times get distracted by wedge issues more than the substance of the actual candidate. Some voters are even single issue voters. They feel so strongly about one or possibly just a few issues that nothing else actually matters to them. Term limits as an example simply doesn't make their top 5 list when voting for a candidate.

See, I get tagged as liberal a lot. But on many issues I'm much more of a moderate. Gun control is one such issue. I'm certainly a proponent of the 2nd amendment. I do however believe that with great power comes great responsibility. So while I promote the 2nd amendment, I do feel like anyone purchasing a firearm should undergo a background check. I believe anyone that is permitted by law to carry a firearm should be required to undergo a basic firearm safety course. On this board that gets you labeled a liberal. While I think this is a common sense issue.

When it comes to social programs I do let me religious beliefs to be combined with what I see as compassion. I don't see it as communist or socialist. Just a minimum standard of human decency. I don't expect people to agree with me if that's what they choose but let me tell you where I arrived at that conclusion....


I know many people on this board are not religious. I'm not a fan of allowing one's religious views to dictate infringing on the rights and choices of those who do not share their religious views and beliefs. But this is something that is not only biblical but something I believe on a personal level. I guess what confuses me the most is how people with strongly held religious views can label people as liberal for something the bible makes clear we should all support and do.

Oh stop. I'm far from the farthest left poster. And Fate, I engage with conservatives, I just don't tolerate the Trumpian Trump fest. Take all things Trump out of the mix and I'm not hard to get along with at all. BUT I HATE ALL THINGS TRUMP. Not hard to understand.

I know you at least one of the posters he was referring to and I won't say he's wrong. Your bombastic tirades are infamous on this board. Hell, he may have been including me for all I know. You are definately included in a ying verses yang discussion in this regard.

No crap? lol, I do have eyes you know. Some people just don't like to hear opposing opinions being passionately voiced, and I give as good as I get.

You're such a stud in your own eyes. You call for violence, often. Neat.

Well, if that's the way you really feel bro, it doesn't usually read that way. I'll be blunt and just say I think you need to work harder to quit turning things into a "Trumpian Trump fest" where one doesn't exist.

I mean that in the kindest way, although I really don't care about your feelings either.

I know I go hard at some posters and am completely intolerant of some others, I never claimed to be perfect, just close.

But seriously, Trumpism triggers me to no end. If I knew the GOP would change course and put in an actual conservative or even an old school somewhat moderate Republican, you would barely hear from me in here. But with Trump still running the show, the scotus now firmly in his grasp, I do truly fear for our democracy. Not holding back, just where I sit. Guys like me and Swish have also been shocked by what passes for patriotism these days. Having the likes of MGT out there screaming that dems are all pedos surely flies in the face of any going forward together... I think there are a lot of despicable people in politics, but no party holds the pedo crown, that I can see. Although, Matt Gaetz might bring it to the right, along with a few others who knowingly slept with underage girls. And I know all GOPers aren't dumb and all aren't racists... but we do need to work on understanding what is and isn't racist, as well as finding out what's really inside all those books before we just ban them. And we need to trust science again. Too many topics that we just don't talk about anymore because they are being weaponized by politics. One Million deaths from covid, how many of those lives could have been saved without misinformation, lockdowns, and all the anti-science BS? We will never know, because we were too busy fighting over Trump stuff or politics to give an actual damn about the dying. Some days I feel like the country has run off a cliff.

I find myself thinking more for the future of my grandkids than I do anything politically. I don't want them to inherit this mess 10 or 20 years from now. I would like to return the world to a place where people are safe in their homes, on the streets, and in their communities. A nation with a strong social safety net that makes sure nobody is screwed over or ruined by medical bills. We should make sure the basics of what everyone needs to compete and thrive in a modern economy are automatic and a shared responsibility. This includes a lot of things Bernie talks about, but also some GOPer points as well. I don't think we should spend so much on entitlement programs as they exist today. All of that money should go to a better safety net. And we do need to acknowledge that whites are not inherently bad for the sins of their forefathers. We have all entered a new era, one of instant information and instant gratification. We have kids telling old people their entire lives were racist, or any number of other attacks in this culture war. Fact is, older people grew up in different times and many things that were acceptable 50 years ago, just aren't today. I'm not so sure we don't always contend with this issue in every generation or three, but lately it has exploded, IMO.

I think both sides have far more healing to do, some changing of the ways, before we can actually move forward "together" and be a strong united country and people again. Sadly, that's just how I see it.

President Biden's administration is bracing for a wave of violence when the Supreme Court rules on Roe v. Wade in June, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.

A May 13 memo from the Department of Homeland Security details ongoing investigations into threats to "burn down or storm" the Supreme Court building. Threats against the court arose last month after a draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade leaked to the press.

Abortion Activists Threaten to Burn Down Supreme Court, Kill Justices When Roe is Overturned
National Steven Ertelt May 18, 2022 10:05AM Washington, DC

The Department of Homeland Security has released a very concerning new report showing that radical abortion activists plan to burn down or storm the Supreme Court building and murder justices and their law clerks once the decision overturning Roe v. Wade is released. The report indicates these pro-abortion extremists will also target churches and other places of worship with violence and vandalism.

The last two weeks have seen a shocking amount of pro-abortion violence following a leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft ruling that overturns Roe v. Wade. Radical abortion advocates across the country are engaging in violence, firebombing pro-life groups, vandalizing and disrupting churches, forcing pregnancy centers to close and staging intimidating protests outside the homes of members of the Supreme Court.

During a public event Friday night, Justice Clarence Thomas condemned the pro-abortion protests taking place in recent days at the homes of members of the Supreme Court. And Justice Samuel Alito, author of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, said he and his colleagues will not be intimidated.

But a new DHS report indicates their lives could be at stake once the draft becomes the official opinion of the high court.

According to a Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by Axios, “Law enforcement agencies are investigating social-media threats to burn down or storm the Supreme Court building and murder justices and their clerks, as well as attacks targeting places of worship.”

The unclassified May 13 memo by DHS’ intelligence arm says threats that followed the leak of a draft opinion — targeting Supreme Court Justices, lawmakers and other public officials, as well as clergy and health care providers — “are likely to persist and may increase leading up to and following the issuing of the Court’s official ruling.”

In response to a request for comment from Axios, a DHS spokesperson said the department “is committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest.

“DHS is also committed to working with our partners across every level of government and the private sector to share timely information and intelligence, prevent all forms of violence, and to support law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe.”

CBS News reports that many of these threats have been made online on social media and are currently being reviewed by law enforcement agencies:

The National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium — the Washington, D.C., regional intelligence hub charged with tracking domestic terrorism threats — has referred at least 25 violent online posts to partner agencies for further investigation. According to the bulletin, some of the social media threats discussed “burning down or storming the U.S. Supreme Court and murdering Justices and their clerks, members of Congress, and lawful demonstrators.”

The DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis said in its bulletin that “grievances related to restricting abortion access could fuel violence by pro-choice abortion-related violent extremists and other [domestic violent extremists.]”

Arson investigators are looking into a fire that broke out inside the headquarters of anti-abortion group Wisconsin Family Action on May 8. Graffiti found at the scene read, “If abortions aren’t safe [then] you aren’t either” and included symbols “typically used by anarchist violent extremists and others to convey anti-law enforcement sentiment,” according to the DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Several churches have been vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti since the Supreme Court leak, including a Catholic church in Boulder, Colorado, another in Fort Collins, Colorado, the Catholic News Agency reports; and a third, the Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Houston, Texas. A Tabernacle also was stolen from Saint Bartholomew Catholic Church in Katy, Texas.

Police are investigating arson at two pro-life organizations in Wisconsin and Oregon, as well as vandalism at several pro-life pregnancy centers. Pro-life advocates also have shared videos and reports of being assaulted by abortion activists at rallies and events. And abortion advocates have threatened to bomb a church in New York City.

The protests are technically illegal in Virginia and the abortion activists should have been arrested.

According to the Code of Virginia, “Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual’s right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”

They’re also a violation of federal law.

Federal U.S. code 1507 prohibits individuals from protesting with the “intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer.” Violators face fines and/or imprisonment of up to a year.

Alito, the author of the draft opinion, and his family were moved from their home to a secure location due to the threats of violence.

Meanwhile, some Democrat leaders have condoned the illegal activity.

“So long as they are peaceful, that’s OK with me,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday.

Similarly, President Joe Biden’s spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the White House “encourages” the protests outside of the judges’ homes as long as they are peaceful.

In a letter to the attorney general Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, slammed the protests outside the justices’ homes as “flagrantly illegal.”

“Federal law makes it a crime for a person, ‘with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,’ to ‘picket or parade … in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge.’ 18 U.S.C. §1507,” Hawley said.

In a separate letter to Garland on Wednesday, Republican Govs. Larry Hogan, of Maryland, and Glenn Youngkin, of Virginia, also urged the Justice Department to “provide sustained resources to protect the justices and ensure these residential areas are secure,” the Washington Times reports.

Since the draft ruling was leaked, pro-life advocates also have been the targets of arson, vandalism, assaults and threats all across the country.

At least two pro-abortion groups have been calling for churches, especially Catholic Churches, to be the target of abortion activists’ outrage. And one group posted the addresses of the Supreme Court justices online to urge people to protest outside their homes.

“The leaked draft memo that states the Supreme Court has struck down #RoeVWade is an ATROCITY but It is not yet law & doesn’t have to be, but what they plan to do & will do if WE don’t stop them. Rise up! & RAISE HELL!” the group Rise Up 4 Abortion Rights wrote on Twitter.

Abortion activists are trying to intimidate the Supreme Court justices to change their minds and uphold Roe after the leaked draft opinion showed the majority voting to overturn the infamous 1973 ruling. The draft is not final, judges can change their minds, and it is not clear when the high court will issue its final ruling on the abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, but many believe the court will overturn Roe and allow states to protect unborn babies again.

Polls consistently show that most Americans support stronger legal protections for unborn babies than what Roe allows. LifeNews highlighted 11 recent polls here. A new Rasmussen poll shows more Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned (48 percent) than want the ruling to remain in place (45 percent).

Since 1973, more than 63 million unborn babies and hundreds of mothers have died in supposedly “safe, legal” abortions.

https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/18...rt-kill-justices-when-roe-is-overturned/

At least they're preparing for a possible scenario. Unlike what we saw when a president wasn't prepared for such a possible scenario.

During the time of the 'god-like' founders, they would have been dragged into the streets, beaten, tarred and feathered, then run out on a rail for this kind of underhanded BS. Anything that happens, is 100% their fault for this egregious deception. Of course whoever does anything is responsible for their own actions, but I'm not going to call for them to NOT FIGHT BACK.

The only good thing about somebody targeting justices is a few deaths would balance the court for the next hundred years. Otherwise, we are where we are due to the courts radical extremists, not the general public's ire.

So, one one thread.......the left is bashing the right for encouraging violence and on another thread, they are saying it's okay if the left becomes violent.

LMAO...............what a whacky, whacky world we live in.

If you call OCD "the left" it looks like that would be correct. However, if you're using the term "the left" as an all inclusive stereotype you would be wrong.

The right IS violent... The left MAY become violent, over the actions of the right. There is a huge difference when you lose the agenda, Vers. Kumbaya.

That doesn't make it right or any better.

I'm definitely not the left. And I don't wish for any violence against the justices FROM ANYONE. But I won't say violence would not BE justified. If for some reason the court reverses and keeps Roe, the right will absolutely lose it's mind... You don't think there would be violence then? Hell the anti-abortionists have been violent for 50 years and nobody ever talks about that crap. Christofascism.

I don't give a damn, I'm just calling it like I see it. Not trying to say this is right and that is wrong. Guys like 40 want to make a big deal out of left wing protests, calling it violent mobs... While overlooking the right's aggression, violence, and culpability. But you can't intentionally attack somebody then cry unfair when they hit back. Screw that, and I won't tolerate that sentiment being casually spread until it's normalized, like most of the outrageous crap the right tries to pull. Science is real, facts are facts... but not for the right. I could go on, but you should get the point.

Buzz off.

Just trying to make it obviously clear that not every left leaning poster agrees with a lot of the things you post. Especially things like this. You have the right to say and post anything you like. That's not an issue for me. But some of the over the top posts you make are things I would never go along with or agree with. I mean now I guess you can call me names like you've done in the past because I'm "liberal enough" for you. That's usually what comes next when I post something like this.

How would you define violence - riots? mass shootings? robberies? stealing? beating people up? Abuse? murder? rape?


Do you have any proof that the left is not violent?

U.S. Marshals providing ‘around-the-clock security’ at Supreme Court justices’ homes, DOJ says

The U.S. Marshals Service is providing “around-the-clock security” at the homes of all nine Supreme Court justices, the Department of Justice said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/doj...ity-at-supreme-court-justices-homes.html

I would say both sides have been guilty of violence which is always wrong, BUT that wouldn't be right. You see it's individual nut cases who have committed the violence. I don't believe 90 percent (just my guess) of people on either side would commit or support violence.

I hope they can keep them safe... for a long, long, time. If ROE goes down, the rest of their lives will require protection from the Big Meanie protesters that did exactly nothing violent toward them. But they are GOPers so being scared should come natural.

Supreme Court could rule on Roe v. Wade on Monday, as Biden admin braces for violence after decision
The Biden admin is preparing for nationwide violence after the Supreme Court issues a decision on Roe v. Wade

Additionally, a memo dated May 13 from DHS reveals that the Biden administration is investigating threats to the Supreme Court building and to justices in the weeks since the leak. The memo first reported by Axios details ongoing investigations into threats to "burn down or storm" the Supreme Court building.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-roe-wade-ruling-biden-admin-braces-violence-decision

Release the Lib Brown Shirts!

This may sound like a spy thriller novel or conspiracy theory, but I wouldn't be surprised if the leak wasn't staged and intentional by the CIA as a distraction to the current economic situation with inflation and gas prices.

I don't think Operation Mockingbird ever stopped.

Personally I think every woman should have a right to choose, and nobody, especially not the freaking government should tell them otherwise.

That's a cause I'd be willing to fight for.

As has been said the decision was going to come out before their summer break. So the leak didn't come out that long before the decision would have anyway. The only difference is that the leak came out a little earlier. I think if you actually look at it, the American public has a very short attention span. If anything I think if it was something to distract people from the economy before the election, it would have been better to have waited until closer to the election, about the time the SCOTUS would ave been announcing it anyway. That would have made the decision much fresher in the minds of the voters.

We saw what happened on January 6th when you don't make plans for a worst case scenario.

It is unconstitutional for Roe to stand at the Federal level.

Abortion law belongs at the State level.

Just like there isn't a Federal Drivers License due to Federalism.

Abortion isn't going away.

LMAO.

What's funny?

The Constitution?
States Rights?
No Federal drivers license?
Federalism?

Or do you just have gas?

You and your trolling.

I guess he thinks people must need a license in order to have an abortion. I wonder if the he thinks they need a license in order to have civil rights? Or maybe he thinks that should be a state to state issue as well. I guess possibly he doesn't understand that protecting the rights of Americans has very often times been a federal issue.

I know you have comprehension problems and like to get fights started but the truth of Federalism covers a myriad of situations.

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government is responsible for broader governance of larger territorial areas, while the smaller subdivisions, states, and cities govern the issues of local concern.

Abortion is one of those situations and will be covered by the States.

Roe is going away, not abortion.

what ever happened to separation of church and state?

You seem to believe people need a license to exercise a civil right.

You guys don't seem to understand it is not the church that is saying Roe is unconstitutional, it is the Judiciary.

Did you mean to address that to me or to pit?

He addressed it to me since he has trouble following along. He must have missed your post.


It seems to be a continuing theme with him.

You dissing Frank is funny.



It is you who did not comprehend my post.

I didn't make that news I just reported it.

No, I addressed it correctly.

The "rights' he cares about should be free from interference. Other rights, especially enumerated rights, should be burdened to make him feel safer.

It is the hypocrisy of "the rights I care about are more important than the rights you care about".

I agree, Rights are Rights whether or not you agree with them.

My point is there are things the Federal government has power over and other things that States have power over. Like drivers licenses.

The Supreme Court looks like they are deciding Abortion law is not within the purview of the Federal gov but the State gov.

We have seen how the Democrats operate.

They send in their violent Brown Shirts to mingle with the regular, lawful protesters and then they explode in violence.
Next they cry that the police cracked down on peaceful protesters.

Rinse and Repeat.

I do understand the idea of State's rights when it comes to abortion. The COTUS doesn't grant the right to govern abortion to the Federal government, which could imply it does not have the ability to do so. Unfortunately we live with a Federal government that has far outstripped its remit and bounds placed on it by the COTUS. There are so many things ways the Federal government has out paced the idea of limited government and State's rights and the rights of the people.

I do see how one could make a 9A and 10A argument for the right to abortion and keep it a federally protected right. Roe's argument was a 14A right to privacy which seems very end-means. Would one have a right to privacy if one is conspiring to commit a crime?

In the end I expect people to lose their minds over the decision but actual fail to read and understand what was decided, no matter how things are decided. I doubt most of the people protesting have even read Roe v Wade or could tell you what the mechanism used to get to the decision was, whether that mechanism was flawed or now. Today it is about people having temper tantrums cause they didn't get their way.

Uh, are you hitting on me by chance?

Funnier and funnier.

No but I could have a beer with you I believe.

Coincidence! Sitting here working on a 40 as I read this!

40 downing a 40

Here's to you Bud.

Obviously, we don't align politically, but you both make true and valid points here. But in the case of ROE, or any other current right being suddenly targeted for political destruction, there is another factor at play in how the country responds. I learned in business a long time ago, that giving employees something they want, for any amount of time without stipulating it is temporary from the onset, and then attempting to take it away, never ends well for the business. I think that same lesson applies to taking rights from people. You can argue it's a federal vs. states rights issue, but everyone can see what is at risk and what those doing this are trying to change or take away. Now we will get to see this play out in real life. I think many championing this move by SCOTUS will live to regret it for reasons too numerous to conceive. Time will tell.

Which I find hilarious. Everyone still has the right not to get an abortion. Nobody is trying to deprive anyone from not getting an abortion. Just like all of the people who fought against gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Nobody is trying to force anyone to get an abortion. Just like religion. Everyone has the right to practice their religion and believe as they choose. They do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society through legislation. Yet they keep doing it.

And yet you would insist people get a license from the government to exercise their right to bear arms, cause "common sense" and "public safety".

I don't expect anyone that doesn't want to bear arms to do so. I wouldn't compel anyone to own arms if they didn't feel the need to, but some would require asking the government for permission even though it is a right.

I've never said anything close to that. All I've said is that everyone should undergo a background check to make sure we aren't putting guns in the hands of people that have been convicted of a felony. I've said anyone who is going to carry a firearm should be required to get a basic safety course so we don't end up with people that have zero experience in handling a gun walking the streets with one stuck in their pants.

You know, common sense measures for the basic safety of everyone. And none of that would prevent anyone without a felony conviction of owning or carrying a gun.

There are gun nuts and responsible firearm owners. I'm not a gun nut. Yet I would be willing to bet I own more guns than most gun owners. I'm pro gun. Not pro nut job.

People such as yourself do more to harm the future of firearms ownership than anyone else. Taking some hard line stance against common sense only makes the anti gun people's ranks grow because they see people such as yourself as being extremists and willing to put a gun in the hands of anyone, any where, any time.

If you replaced the word Democrat for the word Republican it would sound just like Jan. 6th.

Rational basis to deny a right.

Who is requiring background checks for abortion? I mean it is common sense to ensure only those that really need one get one. Maybe we should require training for one as well. I mean, we should stop nut jobs from obtaining abortion.


Again, you will restrict an enumerated right and call it common sense because YOU think FEEL it should be restricted.

It can be hard to understand that other people have rights that you FEEL should be restricted. But that is what freedom is actually about.

Allowing a felon to buy a gun endangers us all. Allowing someone to carry a gun with zero experience or training in handling a firearm endangers us all. An abortion does not. Just like the laws on civil rights endangers nobody else. This isn't difficult.

I'm pretty sure that there are 10 people in Buffalo that don't give a damn about gun rights.. I bet their families don't care either.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number


It's Mid May and we've already had 198 Mass Shootings in the USA.... Just a guess here, but I doubt that anyone who was shot in those shooting cares about Gun Rights. I doubt the families of those killed give a damn about gun rights...


As for the NRA,,, They used to be a great organization. They produced some of the best gun educational tools ever. Then somehow, they turned into idiots.....

I don't see them, the most powerful gun lobby in the world, presenting ANY IDEAS on how to curb gun violence.. NO MEANINGFUL IDEAS.. NO HELP! Mass shootings occur and the NRA jumps into action to make sure that everyone knows that guns don't kill people, people kill people.


My thought is simple,, find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those that have criminal histories or histories of mental illness. But NOOOOOOO... Everyone has a right to a gun.....

Has anyone asked about the rights of those that were killed and injured in Mass Shootings? Do they not have rights?

Does this thinking make me a Snowflake? if so, I'm ok with it. If wanting to find some way to stop gun violence makes me a Snowflake, so be it. If Believing that those that fall victim to gun violance have rights as powerful and important as gun rights,, Yup, I'm a snowflake..

When you believe rational basis is a reason for removing a right, no it isn't difficult. Allowing people to be free and understanding that freedom does not mean a guarantee of safety is difficult for people who need governmental control of their lives.

What "right" did anything I proposed "remove"? None.

Do you have any idea what "a regulated militia" means? You love to focus on the "shall not be infringed" part while ignoring the "regulated militia" part. But that's pretty common actually.

Yes, it means well equipped. That was the meaning at the time.

But you will argue all sorts of other crap using rational basis to deny people their rights.

Also, in was a style at the times to use a prefuncatray clause to add commentary. The actual functionary clause is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We are the people.

reg·u·late

control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

My only argument is that you must have no idea what the word regulate means.

You had to totally change the wording of what it actually does say to fit your narrative and then claim I'm the one who will "argue all kind of crap".

That comma stands for "and".

And the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infrindged.

You continue to get trapped by the idea of a perfunctory clause. It is a A reason, not THE reason. It was a writing style of the times. In the end the teeth of the amendment is " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is inconvenient to statists who believe the government is there to protect us and treat us like subjects.

Pepe must control the world AND WOMEN!

So they said "well regulated militia" but didn't mean it. Got it.

Pepe is his own militia.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf You should be happy since it is CNN.

But I didn't say they didn't mean it. I said, and I will type really slowly for you, is that it is a perfunctory clause. It is A not THE ONLY reason.


Give you one word of advice, don't use Merriam-Webster during constitutional debates. Legal meaning of words and dictionary meaning can vary, greatly at times.

Since it's not specific, 2A could just as easily mean volunteer state militias (National Guard minus fed control). And since well regulated means well disciplined, we trained, well organized... I think it eliminates about 50% gun sales from jump, even if it is translated to an individual right and not a true militia. Why? Because at least half of the people with a gun, or access to a gun in this country, have no training at all.

The "well regulated militia" is given as a reason that the pre-existing, inalienable right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it's not rationale for granting the right.

Words have meaning. I'm sorry that you feel need to use a former AG of trump as one of your sources of the constitution to try and support your claims as we all know experts on the constitution often have conflicting opinions as to interpretations.

Jeffrey Rosen is the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

He was the acting AG under trump during his final days in office.

Would you like me to show you how others disagree?


A Well-Regulated Militia

When I worked on the Hill, I was initially amused when Senators would submit a statement to the record about a bill that would pass overwhelmingly. “Why were they spiking the ball?” I wondered to myself. I eventually asked a more seasoned colleague who explained it wasn’t about vanity, rather it was about documenting legislative intent. If there was ever a court challenge or controversy about the bill, the legislative intent could be understood by the statements members made at the time of passage.

I’ve been thinking about that in the context of the second amendment—the right to bear arms—so I went back to read the intent of the founders. I found the answer in Federalist #29 in which Alexander Hamilton explained the meaning of the phrase “a well-regulated militia.” To understand, however, it helps to put yourself in the context of 1789 America.

The War of Independence was still a fresh memory—closer in time to 1776 than we are today to 9/11. The memory of that experience included a well-developed suspicion of standing armies as a tool of tyranny. Just look at the Declaration of Independence. Its 27 grievances against King George III included protests over:

stationing a standing army among the population in times of peace;
rendering military authority superior to civilian authority;
seizing private property to house troops;
protecting soldiers accused of crimes from trial; and
the crown’s prosecution of war, encouragement of insurrection against local authorities, and support for native nations’ attacks on the colonies.

There are at least a half-dozen specific examples in our Declaration that warned about the threat to liberty of a standing army.

So the founders, suspicious that a standing army could become a tool of some future tyrant, created a system of checks and balances to thwart a federal army ever threatening the liberties of American citizens. Their solution was a well-regulated militia.

In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves. Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—meaning trained to standards set by the federal government.

There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!

Again put yourself in the mind of a founder in 1789. This was a great experiment in liberal democracy and republican government. As a “republic,” everything the state did was a public thing—including defense. Liberal democracies rely on free institutions to protect rights. So you have to see the potential power of the federal government—including a standing army—as offset by the power of a militia under the authority of the states that made up the union. It wasn’t that one man with a gun would stop tyranny: it was that the free association of citizens organized in state governments would act as a bulwark against the power of the central government.

In that context, the second amendment wasn’t about an individual’s right to bear arms: it was about preventing the federal government from interfering in the ability of the individual states to establish “well regulated militias” and thereby protect liberty. Just as the founders created a constitutional system with three co-equal branches of government in opposition and balance with one another, they believed the militia would meet the needs of national defense while also balancing the potential tyrannical power of a standing army.

The American republic was created to be a deliberative republic. Reason and debate are supposed to prevail over emotion and cynical assertions of power. Among the industrialized nations of the world, only the United States tolerates mass violence with guns like we’ve seen this week. Where others have seen spasms of gun violence in recent decades—as in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere—governments have acted to protect their citizens by restricting access to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. In the United States, today, we remain paralyzed—not by fear, not by Constitutional parameters, and not by the intent of the founders. No, we are paralyzed right now by a Senate leadership that simply refuses to even consider legislation to address this crisis. It is a willful dereliction of duty, and it must end.

https://www.pellcenter.org/a-well-regulated-militia/

From Alexander Hamilton himself explaining this in 1788.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

It's quite clear that he is speaking of a regulated militia exactly as stated in the constitution.

One could take that tack. SCOTUS has written opinion that suggests that anyone willing to defend the country is the ad-hoc militia. Being equipped to do the job is important, training is irrelevant without the equipment. I cant speak to the level training people have in general. I think the idea that half of gun owners have no training is likely exaggerated.

Only the militia was put in first setting up the tone for why and under what circumstances were dictated for owning them. The militia part of that right was what was actually preexisting.

Are you in a militia? If not you should turn your guns in. Put up and show us how much you believe in this.

So pointing out how ridiculous your claims are and trying to change what the constitution actually says means I shouldn't own a gun? Now you're just going off the rails. Expected results. It's legal for me to own those guns. That is based on current laws. Not based on some document written in the 1700's by men wearing wigs.

Dude, COTUS was designed to limit the control of the government on the people, you argue the exact opposite.

My rights don't come from a piece of paper. I have them. Period.

You seem to continue to ignore "shall not be infringed" while beating your sofist drum.

You think the government should have more control over arms, go get 2A changed to say something else. There is a process for that, it is in COTUS. But until then, understand the right is protects specifically from government interference, regardless of reason. Rational basis is not appropriate when dealing with constitutionally protected rights, rights I already have.

I always felt that part of gun ownership should be that you have to take a gun ownership/safety class and demonstrate a reasonable level of proficiency. This would allow you to to own a hand gun or hunting rifle. If you wanted to own something more potent like an AR-15 then you would have to take and advanced course for a special license.

This would be just like getting a driver's license then a Class C license if you want to be able to drive a semi.

JMO

One issue I have to licensing is it can be used to deny a right.

Take a handgun permit in HI. It is only valid in the county it was issued, that is if they decide to give you one at all. It is very obvious the state has worked the system to say "well, we offer a permit so there is no constitutional issue" while at the same time only allowing a very small handful of people to obtain the permit. This isn't about "common sense" exercise of a right, it is about denying it and the state trying to say they aren't with a straight face. I have heard talk of new training requirements coming soon that would be almost impossible to meet if you have a job, coupled with the high cost to get the training and pay for the license.

Regulation becomes denial, a right delayed is a right denied.

Anything can be abused and/or done poorly.

Our current status clearly doesn't work.
I don't know what better options there are, or even if there are any better options.

The COTUS was meant to be a guard against abuse by the government, specifically the Federal government. It was never intended to restrict the people, except where laws would be written that did not conflict with the constitution.

To circle back:
- District of Columbia vs Heller.

This should assuage your misguided notion of militia and vis a vis "well regulated". Heller is law of the land, at least until SCOTUS decided differently.

BTW, Dick Heller is a pretty neat guy.

Imagine the left using that to go after guns, sneaky like, in return for ROE... Guns and abortions or no guns and abortions... I wonder how the right would feel then.

Pit you do realize that this has all been litigated and you are barking up an empty tree. In D.C. v Heller in 2008 the court said “the 2nd amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home and that the DC handgun ban was unconstitutional.

The violence started in 2016... or maybe even 08-09 with the Tea Party.

Opinion: What a Nobel laureate's take on Donald Trump reveals about today

(CNN)Shortly after Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison wrote in The New Yorker: "Unlike any nation in Europe, the United States holds whiteness as the unifying force. Here, for many people, the definition of 'Americanness' is color." Reflecting on efforts -- largely by White men -- to define themselves by sustaining that poisonous definition, Morrison argues that those "who are prepared to abandon their humanity out of fear of black men and women, suggest the true horror of lost status."

In Morrison's formulation, fear-driven devotion to racial status is more powerful to many White Americans than even self-interest, shame or any belief in humanity. And it is this reality, that White Americans' anxieties in the face of a changing country have been and continue to be weaponized with disastrous and violent results, that has been instrumental in fueling the spread of so-called "replacement theory," the false and bigoted claim that elites are conspiring to replace Whites with minorities.

Morrison passed away in 2019, but her words echoed with a prescient rattle this week. They hovered, hauntingly, over a Tops grocery store in a majority-Black East Buffalo neighborhood, where a young White man livestreamed the racist mass killing of 10 people. The alleged shooter also posted a hateful rant self-identifying as a White supremacist and expressing a belief in replacement theory.



"Racism, anti-Semitism and a resentment of immigrants are nothing new," emphasized Frida Ghitis. "What is new is that in America, a land of diversity and immigrants, what used to be a fringe theory has found sympathetic voices in one of the two main political parties."

Ghitis diagnosed deep irony that the "growing threat to democracy in the United States is occurring at a moment when US foreign policy has accomplished an extraordinary, historic feat; one that among other things serves to fortify democracy around the world." That feat? Shoring up NATO, which is attracting new members, and leading America's allies with a cohort that may soon include Sweden and Finland. "It's a high point in America's global leadership," Ghitis concluded, "but only if you look at it with one eye closed."

Like Morrison, theologian and activist Keith Magee pondered the brutal, dehumanizing cost of a race-fueled fear of change on all Americans. Writing specifically as a Black father of a young Black son, Magee addressed White teenage males after the slaughter in Buffalo to express empathy with the change and trauma of 21st century pandemic life -- and ask a question.

"Because you are male, you were born a winner of the patriarchal jackpot. You are more likely to rise to the top of the career ladder and will be better paid on your way up. The state will not attempt to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body. On top of that, because you are White, and you live in a country that is structurally racist, you enjoy the huge privilege your skin color gives you ... My question to you is this -- what are you going to do with all that luck?"

He urged young White American men to consider that "luck, like love, is unlimited. The more you share it, the more there is to go around. You will not lose your place in the world if other people are no longer marginalized."



Dean Obeidallah rejected the toxic notion that Whiteness could ever define American identity, arguing that that "demographic change is nothing to fear in America. In fact, it's part of what makes our nation so exceptional ... It's why on the Great Seal of the United States we see the words in Latin, 'E Pluribus Unum' -- which means 'Out of Many, One.' Those who reject that philosophy to instead embrace the 'Great Replacement Theory' are literally rejecting what it means to be American."

In the wake of a horrific event like the Buffalo massacre, people understandably search for solutions, noted Nicole Hemmer, who observed that the "problem of radicalization and right-wing violence is a deeply entrenched and difficult one, one with complexities that require a society-wide approach across political and social institutions to address ... That endeavor is made more difficult by staunch conservative opposition to necessary reforms. Which doesn't mean it will be impossible to defang right-wing radicalism, but rather that Americans will have to enact systemic changes over the long-term to bring that violence under control."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/opinions/opinion-weekly-column-carr/index.html

What "Regulated Militia" did the Buffalo shooter belong too? How about any of the 198 Mass Shootings from this year. Did any of the shooters actually belong to a "regulated Militia"?

It is obvious that rights can be abused. Ironically people use mass shootings as a way to justify gun control but fail to mention the daily killings in some cities as it doesn't push the agenda.

We keep being told that just a little more "common sense" will solve the problem. If we could just do background checks, or more of them. If we ban certain, scary looking, guns. NY state already has pretty strict laws and even a red flag law. The shooter was had contact and would have been a good candidate for red flags. In the end the people in that store might have faired better if they had taken their own safety in hand and been prepared to meet force with force.

Regardless see https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1946205/re-and-the-violence-begins#Post1946205 about the milita debate.

Read it again. A well regulated militia is the reason we shall not infringe on the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It is not the reason for granting the right.

FrankZ posted a pdf discussion of this by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (former AG under Trump ) and Jack Rakove. Refer to page four about rather the 2A is a right to own guns.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

He also posted an excerpt from Heller which is straight from SCOTUS' mouth.

OK,,, so what regulated Militia did he belong too?

The Straw Man Militia.

Read it again. But this time all the words...and slower.

Well we all know someone today trying to figure out what the forefathers meant in the constitution mean more than Alexander Hamilton's own words in the federalist papers.

So let's go with your theory that we should only concentrate on the words you think we should while ignoring the other part about an organized militia. Which is clearly stated and one of the actual authors of the constitution wrote about himself......... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is nothing in there about convicted felons. The forefathers never made an exception to a convicted murderer buying a firearm. Therefore anyone preventing a convicted murderer from legally purchasing a firearm is violating his or her second amendment rights.

There is nothing in the constitution about fully automatic weapons either. They mention no limits of the types of firearms any citizen, even a convicted felon can purchase. So if we ignore everything else as you suggest and only concentrate on the words you desire to concentrate on, the day a convicted murderer is released form prison he should be able to go out and legally purchase a fully automatic weapon. No background check, no permit. Everyone has to apply for a special permit to own a fully automatic weapon. there is a reason for that. But hey, that's violating their second amendment rights!

I mean the forefathers knew we would have fully automatic weapons back in 1776, right? They knew we have have pistols that's would hold 19 cartridges and could be reloaded simply by changing magazines in a matter of a couple of seconds, right? They had crystal balls to address everything we face almost 250 years later.

But to trust what you are trying to say here we would have to concentrate on only one part of the second amendment and ignore the rest of it. We would also have to believe they could see into the future and understand the weapons we have today. We would also have to believe if they saw the weapons and conditions we live in today they would have written it the same way. The constitution has been amended 26 times because people are smart enough to figure out they lacked the ability to do that.

I mean some of them owned slaves too. There was nothing about that being wrong or illegal in the constitution either.

So you stick with relying only on the words you want to while ignoring the rest to keep it in context in its entirety. You ignore what one of the very writers of the constitution said about it. You ignore that laws have been put in place to prevent dangerous convicted felons from legally purchasing firearms. You ignore that anyone can't just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon. Just ignore that at some point common sense needs to be used while still giving every American who is not a convicted felon the right to purchase a firearm. Because there are no laws on the books nor should there be to prevent you from that.

A little common sense doesn't prevent you from buying or carrying a firearm. It just shows the rest of society that you take that responsibility seriously instead of putting guns in the hands of convicted felons and making sure people walking down the street know how to handle a gun. I know for some just those sensible, responsible steps are too much to ask for because "MAH Rights!"

It has always been well understood that people convicted of crimes, especially felonies have GIVEN up their rights. This also satisfies the idea of prison (freedom of movement), death penalty (right to life), and fines and financial penalties (right to the pursuit of happiness). Restoration of rights can be an arduous task, especially the restoration of your 2A protected rights. It is possible though, there are forms you need to fill out and interviews and all that. But your freedom of movement being curtailed in the case of prison usually requires you do to do something to have it restored as well, whether that is just behave while incarcerated or more formally go before a parole hearing.



No there is no mention of limits on types of arms in the constitution and as such you should understand that there were no limits placed on the types of arms allowed. The forefathers actually did understand there were more than musket and cannon (cannon being ordinance that private people used to be able to own). Keep in mind the Puckle gun was invented in 1718, roughly 73 years before the Bill of Rights. It was crude but it did serve notice that single shot muskets were not the only technology.

The NFA disallowed private citizens from buying machine guns without getting a license. It is interesting that the government didn't outlaw them completely at the time, they made you pay a tax stamp to acquire one. It seems they were more interested in making money than they were about "solving a problem". I do think the NFA, and later laws that amended and added to such, are unconstitutional on their face. They are infringements and as such should be struck down.

Again, convicted felons have GIVEN up their rights and as such are not allowed their 2A protected rights without restoration.


Not withstanding the Puckle gun, do you think the forefather's foresaw the little brick of a data access device most people carry today? What about the massive amount of electronic computing power that is the Internet. Do you think these should not be covered by 4A protections? Is HIPPA unconstitutional just because no one thought your papers could be digital? The lack of a crystal ball is merely a straw man arguemnt.



Essentially yes, we have to trust it meant what it meant and it still means that today. I am not ignoring any part of the amendment. I have covered the initial part since you were so fixated on that with the Heller decision. SCOTUS gave us a ruling which clarifies the first part quite nicely. If you have not read it I suggest you do. I do understand that Heller is about "keep" and not "bear" but to be fair that was the question asked, and that was the question answered. This is usually how SCOTUS works, rarely do they rule outside of the asked question. Petitioners need to be careful they ask the right questions.


Yes, some did. This was addressed and rectified (rightly so) in 13A. There is a process for changing the constitution. It was included with the document. It has been amended with 27 ratified amendments. The process is not easy and was never meant to be. The process does not involve simply ignoring the process and trying to pass laws that inhibit rights in such a way that they are denied.



Again, I have not ignored anything. I have addressed prefatory clause and the operative clause, both in great detail. I have addressed the common law idea that felons have GIVEN away their rights and may have the restored, or they may not. I have not ignored that "anyone can't just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon" I have lamented that. I do believe the NFA does not pass constitutional muster and I do hope for correction of that. You do know, of course, that you can apply for a tax stamp and buy a machine gun right? It is possible, it is just a very slow, burdened process. So it is not forbidden, just very difficult. I have friends that have happy switches on certain firearms and I do admit to being a tad jealous of that.


"Common sense" is not quantifiable. You've been asked more than once by me, and always fail to answer:

How much training do you think someone needs? What form of training? How much should it cost? How much should the application to prove to the government cost to be allowed to exercise your rights? You will likely just describe "common sense" without actually answering the question, yet again. You will mock people who believe fundamental rights should not be infringed, because you are scared of other people excursing said rights. You will ignore the idea that burdens and fees to exercise a right disenfranchise those same poor people you were so worried couldn't get an abortion if laws were stricter.

So I have
1) Addressed the entirety of 2A for you.
2) Addressed common law and the expectation of felony conviction
3) Addressed "common sense" and the burdening of a right.
4) ASKED a question that you will likely ignore, since you have repeatedly.

Hmmmm... Suddenly you have decided that a stand alone statement in a group of larger words no longer stands alone? So even though the constitution says nothing about taking away the rights of convicted felons, you say it's "long been understood"? I guess that means there have been changes that created further restrictions to owning a firearm than a single statement in the constitution. As long as they're ones you agree with?

So you're trying to use the Puckle gun which citizens never actually owned to make an excuse that we have so many weapons today that are widely available to citizens? You brought up a lot of things our forefathers couldn't foresee. Which was exactly my point. They were men like the rest of us. They couldn't see into the future. They couldn't foresee the situation, murder rate and just how easily people could acquire guns that can kill so many, so quickly. That's why there have been modifications to our laws such as preventing convicted felons for purchasing firearms. Once again you use the constitution as a reaon not to accept the things you disagree with and accept changes you do agree with which were no part of the constitution.

I do realize and fully understand the process of how to legally purchase fully automatic weapons. I also know that fits the "description" of a license that you are so against.

Basic training of how to handle and properly fire a firearm is not burdensome. It is not complicated nor expensive. It does not prevent you from anything. On one hand you claim that common sense isn't quantifiable, then you've spent much of the time trying to make the argument that we should ignore any basic training for people to handle objects that clearly have the ability to kill a mass number of people in a matter of seconds.

I hope you can at least understand that people such as yourself with such extremist notions are actually doing more to undermine gun ownership and carrying forearms than they are helping. The anti gun lobby uses people such as yourself as the poster child for their cause. And it's working.

Maybe we should all be able to go out and buy rocket launchers and tanks at the local gun store too?

I am no expert and I am responding only to this comment on the assumption it is accurate - but the draft opinion on removing the right to abortion recently leaked, used the lack of abortion specifically being mentioned in the constitution as grounds for removing the right at a federal level. Surely if that holds water - then if the constitution grants gun ownership rights, does not specifically exclude or remove that right for felons ... then sure felons should have a right to bear arms? Maybe I have grasped something backwards here?

Yes and that's why there are two points of view on that.

IMO if you're going to stand on one singular part of the 2nd amendment to prove your point while ignoring the rest of it..... If you're going to use that same phrase in the bill as concrete reasoning for your opinion, then you must also use it for everything in connection with firearms. The "yeah well people figured out later that felons shouldn't own firearms" means the very wording you are using in your argument in the constitution was and has been modified by laws after it was written in regards to firearm ownership. Trying to use that as an excuse means that's not the only thing people can "figure out later".

There's no, "Well it's okay that they changed that part but they can't change anything else because I don't like it". It's either all inclusive or it isn't. It's not a pick and choose situation based on what you agree with and what you do not.

Got it 100%. A hard following of the constitution or an originalist ... except when it's inconvenient.

And there's the spin. Not what I said. I have explained how the amendment was written. There are two clauses, the first of which you kept pointing to while ignoring the second. I have addressed both clauses, their meaning and their context using, amongst other things, words from SCOTUS itself.

Now here is the subtle part you must have missed, even though I tried very hard to be blunt.






When you commit a felony it has long been understood in common law that YOU forfeit your rights. This is congruent with the second amendment as the Federal government is NOT infringing your rights, you GAVE them up..





What the above noticed and clear now? You might have missed it with be just using capitals on the word GIVEN in my previous post.



No, I am using the puckle gun to show that there were machine guns at the time. Crude yes, but they existed nonetheless. The founders certain understood technology would progress. and that multi-shot weapons were possible.

Murder rate, rates of fire and every other rhetorical argument you made is immaterial. The second amendment is there to protect citizens rights to own arms, not restrict that right. It does not grant the right, it only protects it. Rational basis is no way to examine a fundamental right, one really should use strict scrutiny. You continue to use rational basis. This is incorrect.




It is a license and it is infringement. I have said that before.



MD requires a 16 hour class. This can run $300, $75 for the carry license and then $50 so you can buy a hand gun. Just for the HQL you must fire a round, this is not law, other than the state police seem to think it was meant to be so they require it. There are NO ranges inside the city of Baltimore, so anyone that wishes to legally carry must leave the city. But it isn't your money so making someone in the city leave doesn't concern you.

You would be incensed to require someone to pay $400+ to vote. (please don't use the tired old straw man on this one, voting and arms ownership are both fundamental rights)





Let me translate this:

"stop caring about your fundamental rights so the people who don't want you to have those rights stop trying to take the rights away from you". I hope you can understand that is about the worst argument you have made in a long list of bad arguments. If I stop fighting for my rights then I don't have them. To be honest they will continue regardless.

And I have never seen myself on a poster.

To be fair I don't know why you would care so much about rocket launchers and tanks. If I have evil in my heart I can do a lot of damage without those, owning them doesn't change that. Did I mention that during the writing of the BOR people owned CANON? Even private warships with LOTS of canon.

The constitution does not say or even imply that felons were excluded from owing firearms. It was not until 1968 that federal law prohibited felons from owing a firearm. Is that what you mean by "long understood"? So it wasn't until 1968 that a law was created at the federal level at which time addressed something not in the constitution involving the right to own a gun.

Can you explain to me "what right" is being taken away from you? If you're not a convicted felon you can own a firearm. If you take a basic safety course you can carry a firearm. With exception of those states that feels it's perfectly safe for someone who may have never touched a firearm to just buy one, load it and stick it in their belt.

So there is nothing there that "infringe on your right" to own a firearm. The last hand gun I bought was a 19 shot 9mm. It cost $650. Now I understand how you would like to point to the extreme example of how much it would cost you to et a CCW permit in a certain state. That certainly gives it a dramatic effect. But let me show you the counterpoint. In TN. they passed that crazy law that let's anyone, even those with zero experience in the handling of firearm to carry a weapon without a permit.

But let me show what it cost before it was passed. $37.97.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/us...LE4AUCsmgX3oqE0UcHwRWfD51dsaArb_EALw_wcB

So I mean if you wish to show an extreme example I can give you the counter extreme. If I can afford to spend $650 on a hand gun, I can afford $37.97 for a CCW permit. You can't seem to grasp the concept that nobody is preventing you of purchasing or carrying a gun. Nobody.

And that's why those laws have been changed. Because the constitution is a living document and not something etched in stone.

Yes and no. It can be changed/unchanged (see prohibition), but that was made intentionally difficult. A lot of people like "original" interpretation. I had a post about interpretation a while ago.

I will use the second amendment as an example. In reality it should be clarified because we have a standing military. But there are people that would rather spend their lives trying to figure out what it means or does not mean that it is impractical to change now.

In this case it has been defined by laws outside of the constitution. Such as the constitution says nothing that would prevent convicted felons from legally owing a firearm. A federal law was passed that did. We not only have a standing Army. Each state has a National Guard force designated as protection for that state which is at the discretion of the governor.

MD is not the extreme example, it is but one example of using training and fees to regulate (ban) a right.

Try to get enough training in Hawaii to get a carry permit. They haven't issued one in over 20 years, but they have it on the books if you meet the requirements you can get one. States use fees and training as barriers. Should we require fees and training to vote? Maybe a "may issue" style permitting scheme. (Yes, this is where you talk about evil black baby killing clipazines of death and mayhem).

The constitution was never meant to be a living document. It was meant to be difficult to change. It was done, ON PURPOSE, so fads would come and go and not influence the foundation of the countries legal system.

When you commit crimes you give up rights. This has been a common law idea for a very long time (think before the constitution). I explained it before, you skimmed it.

And you continue to fail to answer the question, how much training do you think one should have? <=-- QUESTION ALERT!!!


Since you indicated in other threads you never fail to answer questions, and this one has been asked of you several times by now.

I AM curious as to what level of "training" would be needed in his mind.

I'm not an expert on "how much training someone should have". But as I've already said which doesn't seem good enough for you, enough to know how to safely handle and discharge a firearm.

There have been 27 changes to the constitution. That's the very definition of a living document.

People can claim anything as a "Barrier". But it's really just an excuse to let anyone who buys a gun, many not even knowing how to handle it, to walk out of a gun store, tuck it in their belt and walk among all of us. It's an excuse to purposely endanger the life of us all.

Read the NRA safe handling instructions. Done. Of course you would also, in your world, need to show that you've done so. I mean, unless you expect the state to take your word for it. Of course that basic of a requirement is really like no requirement at all, so why bother having it?

No, a living document means it changes quickly. When people claim it is a living document what they really mean is "I don't like this, we should just make a law that supersedes it" understanding that changing the constitution is difficult for a reason (which is why it has been changed 27 times, if you count the BOR as 10 of course) and we have 10's of thousands of laws.

The constitution resists change, that is the opposite of living document.

It has changed 27 times. That in and of itself means it's a living document. If a document can be amended it's a living document. Resisting change doesn't mean it can't be changed. History has proven this. And no, reading something does not show you know how to safely fire, load, unload and handle a firearm.

Not quite. The constitution has 27 amendments. It really only changed 17 times. The BOR was added as a single change, which was agreed upon in principle before the constitution was ratified completely. Of the other 16 changes 2 of them offset each other. This does not make a living document. Source code is a living document. It may have very ridgid change control but that would be a living document. The consitution is a foundational document. It is not readily changeable like a living document. Those that say it is a living document usually follow up with "so we can make it work with the times, no one needs guns anymore" or similar tripe.

"enough to know how to safely handle and discharge a firearm."

That is pamphlet material. The NRA has several. Unless you think people need to attend a class, spending money to do so. Maybe buy a license to purchase a gun, ya know after they spent money attending the class. Maybe submit finger prints to purchase said gun, after they submitted them for the class.

Requiring training and fees to exercise a right is denying that right. And frankly, I don't care if you don't like it. Let's require training and fees to vote. That would cause all manner of gnashing of teeth and vitriol about disenfranchising people. You cannot delay a fundamental right and rationalize* it away.


*There's that mention of rational basis again. in case you missed it.

Not totally correct. The first 10 amendments were required to obtain passage by the States.

So you claim you can learn how to handle a firearm by reading a pamphlet. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've eve seen posted on here.

If something is not a living document it can't be amended. You seem to have a problem understanding that.

This is patently absurd.

Driving a car
Driving a motorcycle
Driving a semi as a job
Operating certain heavy machinery
Perform CPR
Become a lifeguard
Get hired as an engineer/doctor/nurse/teacher/etc

All are rights or attached to rights that require (both legally and according to common sense and for the public good) training and/or fees.

What you have listed there are privileges, not rights IMO. Those who created and passed 2A recognized the right to keep and bear arms as pre-existing and inalienable.

Those are privileges, and subject to routine laws.

Everyone has constitutional rights. Voting is a right, peaceful assembly is a right, freedom of speech is a right.

That said even voting has registration requirements.

There are 5 amendments involving voting alone 14th 15th, 19th 24th, 26th, There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent amending the second amendment, but that would be difficult because of those who would rather argue about its meaning than to clarify its intent.

And I think it would be because there are people would wish to neuter it rather than clarify the intent, because they do not like the right.

I would also argue that people have the freedom of movement as an inalienable right, and as such the idea we force people to license and register cars is overbearing. This is done for the convenience of the government, and to show in, especially in the early years, they were doing things to make people safe now please give them your vote.

The freedom of movement is addressed in passive by the 9th amendment.

I agree that any clarification would likely neuter the 2nd amendment. That is one of its problems. It is too broad for interpretation.

And the violence begins: 2 major mass shootings in two weeks that can be easily traced back to GOPerism as the underlying enabler.

Armed man who sought to kill Brett Kavanaugh arrested near Supreme Court justice’s home

A California man armed with a handgun, a knife, pepper spray and burglary tools was arrested early Wednesday morning near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, law-enforcement authorities said.

The unidentified man, who is in his mid-20s, told police he was there to kill Kavanaugh, according to authorities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/08/arm...r-threatening-supreme-court-justice.html

It's a good thing the Biden administration has taken the steps necessary to protect the SCOTUS in these violent times. Hopefully that will also prevent the next January 6th from happening.

Obviously Kavanaugh needs a better door.

So much for good guys with guns stopping bad actors, huh? smh. I'm glad nobody killed him, but his lying ass put that target on his back. It's nothing like those innocent babies in Uvalde. I don't think we'll ever stop all killings in this country, especially with Trumpian thugs on the streets.

Extremist Gun Group Says To Prepare For ‘Battle’ At U.S. Capitol Amid Gun Control Talks

https://www.yahoo.com/news/extremist-gun-group-says-prepare-160556194.html

too bad they won't battle street gangs, the mafia, or protect children. but yea, apparently this is what motivates them to action.

pathetic.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."
- Democrat leader Chuck Schumer

These DC criminals: Schumer and Pelosi get away with everything while they go after the innocent.

No justice for Ashley Babbitt!

Probably the truest words Schumer has ever spoken. But unlike the dolt right, we know he never meant somebody hunting them down and killing them. Shameless politics. The cops caught a kid with a gun and some tools, in custody, he told them he had it out for Kavanaugh. Glad they protected him, but big damn deal. Just like anybody else, if you play a stupid game, you get stupid prizes. What Kavanaugh has or is about to do to millions of women? He can rot for all I care. All of those lying-ass Trumpian justices can rot.

And yet, I see no tears out of the cult-right for those kids gunned down, or the lives that will be ruined over their obsession with controlling women. Don't expect any pity from me when Karma comes calling.

Oh, she got her justice.

I was on Tik tok about an hour ago and three different videos came up of about 30-35 guys in camo that were arrested in Idaho today.
Somebody called the police on them as they were spotted getting in the back of a U-Haul truck.
They were all in camo pants, blue shirts and had what one called a "kkk" masks on.

The police pulled them over, got them all out of the truck and unmasked and arrested every single one of them.

They were members of a group called "Patriot Front" and were on their way to a pride event called Pride in the Park.

They were arrested on conspiracy to riot charges and there could be other charges pending.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5543473/patriot-front-members-arrested-pride-event-jumping-into-uhaul/

She was trying to break into the speakers lobby that would have given them access to the house members as they were still trying to get the members out. That's why the door was barricaded and had security to make sure the door wasn't breached.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Did you even look at that article. They seem to be up to no good, but they were not wearing camo pants or "kkk masks" Thats a libtard crybaby wet dream.

They were poop monkeys.

Idaho is a backwater state filled with a bunch of these types. It’s the West Virginia of the Pacific NW.

lol how you out here trying to give white supremacist the benefit of doubt when it comes to what they're wearing? they had balaclavas on and had patches on their shirt and hats that CLEARLY identified themselves as members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front. you honestly think they're any different than the klan? you think somehow that's a more redeemable quality than the klan?

yall will defend these sort of clowns and give them any little excuse, and then turn around and get mad if someone claims you're racist.

that would be like me defending losers like Farrakhan and then get mad if somebody claims im racist toward white americans. uhhh, duuuuuuuuh.

oh, and remember when conservatives claimed the left was transporting protesters to different cities?

man, conservatives out here transporting white supremacist in full riot gear to disrupt pride events. the projecting by the right is astounding.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/idaho-police-arrest-dozens-suspicion-conspiracy-riot-gay-pride-event

go straight to the comment section, and look at all the conservatives defending these losers. a bunch of Eve's and Jfanent's making all the excuses in the world....for white supremacist.

Are you saying then that the left didn't transport protesters to different cities? Just curious on this.

i dunno, because i never seen a group of leftist protestors in full riot gear being transported across state lines getting bust by the cops.



i see the right CLAIM a lot of crap though, only for actual video evidence of them doing the very thing they claimed the other side was doing.

are you now another poster defending the actions of white supremacist? are you saying this video you are watching is a-ok? are you now claiming that it's bad for all different races of americans to protest against police brutality, but ok for white supremacist to attempt to inflict fear and terror against the LBGT?

are you doing another "whatabout" post? are you gonna actually respond to the incident, or just respond to my response? seems to be an occuring theme. more concerned with what i say than what's actually happening. What's the over/under on you actually addressing the incident at hand?

WTF? I didn't comment on this thread and I don't defend white supremecism. I remember posting a meme here that you got upset about that was slamming dems and all the dems in it were AA. I honestly thought the one women was white, but if I would have said that here, I would have been laughed out of the place. I absolutely didn't intend to try and slip a racist crack into the forum. I take the conservative (not what's passing for conservative in todays federal government) stance on a lot of issues and that's not going to change.

This is why there can be no dialog or changes.

I asked a question, and you now think you can attack me for being a <fill in the blanks of all sorts of nasty stuff>

There have been numerous stories of right wing protests being disrupted violently by left wing people, I honestly don't think there is question it happens. You did however try to gaslight with saying the right claims the left does it but it really is them doing it. Both sides have been trying to silence the other. I keep hearing how we need "conversations" but it seems people mean they just need to shout down anyone they think doesn't agree with them.


I don't agree with the white supremacist's message, I do agree they should be allowed a voice and the ability to protest without violence. Just as I don't agree with the "antifa" anti-capitalist message, but they have the right to peaceful protest and to have a voice.

dont play the WTF game. Eve is out here defending that crap and you endorsed her post. the reason i got ticked off was because it was all AA, even though you knew damn well during those protest in 2020, every color and they momma's was out there. AA's, WW's, the NBA, all of them.

so you think a bunch of white supremacist packed in a Uhaul truck traveling across state lines in riot gear and masks were there to peacefully protest?

you know why it's hard to have dialog? because once again, you couldn't even call this specific instance out directly. it's always gotta be a 'whatabout' comment attached to it. when you do that, you downplay the very incident that just took place.

you want dialog with me? start by calling these clowns out without deflecting to someone else. until you do that, this is the kind of response you will get from me.

back to the incident.

i'm glad the cops responded the tip a caller sent. i wish they would've unmasked these clowns on the spot for all to see, however. these losers still managed to get off relatively easy.

i can't even call out the Klan with this. the klan that exist today is on their nationalism, leave me alone rhetoric. these new racist we got today are extremely violent, extremely open with their hate, and very motivated to carry out these acts.

imagine being so bothered by the LBGT community that you load up in a back of a Uhaul in an attempt to create fear, panic, and intimidation just because you're offended.

your feelings doesn't give you the right to violate other people's rights. imagine being so proud of your race that you gotta be masked up and dressed like a bunch of private military, all boy high school.

starting to think a lot of these conservatives are in the closet themselves. aint no way in hell you hate somebody that much for their sexuality, unless you hate yourself for your sexuality...

just like these white supremacist. bet all the money in my account most of them jump straight to PHub and seach for latino/ebony videos.

Swish,
Do you have a tik tok account or able to navigate twitter?
There was a lot of people on site when they brought them out of the U-haul and lined them up.

They did unmask them before they led them off-and there was pictures of them. a lot of pictures and video

By the time I went to sleep last night, a bunch of them were booked and their names were already listed.

i do. but unfortunately when it comes to news i try to stick to verified accounts, although even i screw that up every now and then. i'll search for more of the videos and photos. but since you told me, i trust that it indeed did happen.

Get bent. Here's the post I liked. It's not defending anything. It even says they seem to be up to no good.

"Did you even look at that article. They seem to be up to no good, but they were not wearing camo pants or "kkk masks" Thats a libtard crybaby wet dream."

ill get bent as soon as you stop dancing around the fact that you endorsed Eve's post trying to deflect and downplay what just occurred.

til then, i'll keep believing that you're A-ok with voting side by side with white supremacist. and all you can do is be mad about it.

You believe what you want, but I'm more sad than mad that someone would think I'm a closet racist. I'm not dancing, I admitted liking the post. How does "they seem to be up to no good" deflecting and downplaying? I got a chuckle out of the dig at the hyperbole.

so anyways, back to this group Patriot Front.

did a bit of digging. I'm trying to figure out why they don't allow women in the group. Like, shouldn't having women present gain more legitimacy to their cause?

let's say they get their wish of no LBGT or minorities in a particular state - because we all know it won't be the entire country.

gonna be kinda hard to repopulate the master race without women, right? i really want to know how an ethnostate would sustain itself. sounds pretty complicated.

Meet the American who invented the 'clean, wholesome' corn dog

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/meet-american-invented-corn-dog

Thats how it works on this board now. Disagree with a liberal and suddenly you're white supremist.

That's how it works in all of Amerika these days.

White, christian, racist, supremacist child killer, elitist.

So you believe violence should be allowed if the perpetrators are left wing? <=-- see... deflection and misleading question

You again, misrepresent what I said. It feels like you are just fine with the violence if the people are left wing, but you want to point and shout if they are not. You either believe the violence is wrong or you don't.


Maybe you missed this the first time. Try reading the whole bit instead of just jumping to conclusions. I don't have to agree with the message to believe in someone's right to say it. You seem very focused on silencing one side and only pointing out the warts from that side.

smh, I must need some sleep. I read that as baklava. Why the hell would they be wearing sticky treats? smh.

TO START RIOTS AND BLAME THE LEFT!

Protesters, yes. Thugs looking to start riots, no. The bigger part of the BLM riots was 100% started by right-wingers like these, trying to start a race war. It was obvious then and obvious now. And yes, many of ALL colors jumped on the looting bandwagon. But there is hard evidence that right-wingers like these losers were there starting the riots.

I believe you. Please don't prove me wrong.

Antifa isn't anti-capitalist, they are anti-fascist first, anti-racism/bigots next, and anti-corrupt-capitalism maybe 10th or 11th. We all live in a capitalist society, so we are all capitalist by default. smh

First, it wasn't "conservatives" transporting haters. This small faction did it themselves, with no help from true "conservatives". There is no link from them to conservatives, other than they may call themselves conservative.

Haters gonna hate. A tip came in, thankfully, and they all got arrested, thankfully.

No "projecting" from the right, that I know of.

But see, when you lump people together, you look bad, really.

I'm a white (sorry) Christian (sorry) conservative (sorry) that has NEVER stood for or endorsed anti lgbq rights.


But, since I'm white, Christian, and conservative, you lump me in with the radicals on the right. Would you be fine if I lump you in to a radical leftist, and being a racist?

You can count on them being doxxed by now and on the list. There are many on the list. They will be lucky to ever see a corporate paycheck again. There is just no place in a democracy for people like this.

Oh, this bit is funny?


Then I no longer believe you.

And I'm pretty sure you liking it is crack-baby Eve's wet dream.

And I fully expect a like for that dig at the hyperbole.

go ahead and call me whatever you want.

you're the one who votes with the same party that caters to white supremacist. there's literally nothing you or anyone else can call me or label me that is worse than voting side by side with the "jews will not replace us" crowd.

all i'mma do is laugh.

Where is this "hard evidence"?

You probably saw it 100 times and just denied it. Look up the riots and umbrella man.

notice how specific they have to get when i call them out.

white, christian, conservative. a very specific demographic.

meanwhile all they can do is call us libtards and leftist, cause they can't be any more specific. why? cause its literally white, black, latino, asian, middle eastern, straight, LBGT, christians, muslims, jewish, etc etc etc.

meanwhile i don't know who fits the stereotype of an illegal alien more: the illegal alien, or the all white conservatives hoping out the back of a Uhaul.

I feel your faux victimhood. I will shed a fake tear for you now. Feel better?

It's a regular self-inflicted victimhood pity party up in here! Whoo hoo! I found the circus, now bring on the clowns!

And wishing they were Russian. Don't forget that bit. Cheering for Putin, only ONE demographic is doing that.

But see, I didn't call you anything. You have lumped me into a category I don't belong to. And I've never called you a libtard, or anyone else for that matter. As for leftist, yeah, just like I'm called names. But you don't care - you just like lumping people into a pile of "I don't like."

When you do that, people reply.

YOU JUST SAID YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE A VOICE. Their message is hate, and you endorse them being able to spread it. Tell me how Swish is wrong again? smh. Do you even read what you write?

Everyone is allowed to have an opinion. Everyone is allowed to peacefully protest. When things get violent, or there are more than hints of things getting violent, or when the rights of others are inhibited due to violence or threats thereof, that's when the problem exists.

Hey arch, I read your post after Swish responded, so this one time I will respond. I don't think you are a bigot in any way toward the LGBTQ community. You just vote with them and run in the same circles politically. But you would never bash the LBGTQ community and I believe you.

And these asshat weren't going to protest. They were on their way to instigate and hurt people. Screw them and anybody who thinks their message deserves a voice.

Glad y'all were able to work out your differences and we can move forward helping one another to make our world a better place. Well done.

I understand they more than likely were'nt going to "just" protest. They were going there to cause problems. They are not me, nor the vast, vast majority of whites, or conservatives, or Christians.

But when I get lumped into "supporting" them based on who I vote for? I have an issue.

Glad to know even though I'm on your perma ban list, you read every post I make.

This ain't nothing but an internet ice cream social Vers... Swish is serving up just desserts and I'm laying [on] the whipped cream on and some nuts.

Conservatives let them in arch, and Trump asked for their votes. What are we supposed to think?

Conservatives let WHO in? Where?

So much for your so called "perma ban".

so you're not a white christian conservative who votes for a party that caters to white supremacist?

why you out here lying?

See, you just can help yourself. And you wonder why I ignore you. You know damn well they vote conservative. But I do believe you are an old school true conservative, your blinders just won't let you see that guys like you are fighting guys just like you to include people like Patriot front in your voting tallies? Is being in power and pwning the libs that important to you arch? Don't pretend it's not. You wouldn't be so damn annoying with you nit picking and twisting words all the time if it wasn't. That's just sad IMHO.

I am white. Sorry. I am Christian. Sorry. I'm conservative. Sorry. I vote for a party that caters to white supremacists? You're sorry.

I could turn the tables and say a lot, but I have class. I will say this, you vote for a party that claims to help the poor, but has done nothing more than created more poor.

So you are everything I just said, but tried to claim otherwise.

Doesn’t sound like a person with class.

But he made a point of pretending to apologize for who he was to shame you. DO you feel any shame for that? If not, I wonder why?

I think there was a lot more than just Alt Riot groups using these protests to create chaos and try to make the 'Left' look like extremists ... I think personally a lot of it was just opportunist thugs/vandals/thieves. Whoever they were I hope they all got caught and prosecuted.

But to your point about proof of the Alt Right trying to turn these events violent - it was widely reported with proof.

Here's just one article - you have google and research yourself if you want more. But this was stated by Trump's own man - so presumably would be an acceptable source.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ists-in-u-s-urban-violence-idUSKBN26031F

In what was billed as a “2020 State of the Homeland” speech, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf initially attributed violence in Portland, Oregon in particular to “violent opportunists” and went on to describe how protesters had attacked federal officers with sledge-hammers, pipes, fireworks, homemade bombs and other weapons.

Wolf also attributed violence to both “white supremacist extremists” and “anarchist extremists,” mentioning white supremacists first, in a speech livestreamed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.

It’s impossible for me to feel any shame from these guys.

and side note: I’m with you on the Bernie bro. Corporate democrats empower clowns like patriot front as well. Definitely moved me further to the left.

I started out where guys like arch and Pit were, party-line Republican. It wasn't until the tea party come along that you had to hate Dems. My mother is and was a Dem then. Screw the republican party. And it ain't even about Bernie, it's about doing what's right. Making sure the least of us have what they need is minuscule in comparison to all the military and black budget spending. Leveling the playing field so everyone can go to and afford to go to school makes sure we are all educated and we don't miss out on the accomplishments of great minds. It's so sad to me to think about the Einsteins we've let live and die in squalor for the sake of saving what amounts to pennies! This world is full of injustices that we could easily make right, fair, and balanced. This would in turn make life better for every American, but as long as evil political and corporate SOBs control the minds and souls of their base, we will never get past greed and hateful rhetoric. Glad you are seeing these things.

j/c:

This probably won't go over well, but what's new? Have any of you ever thought that there are both good and bad people in both parties? Have any of you considered that there are many law-abiding folks who are on the left? Or the right? Have any of you thought that there are violent people on the left? Or the right?

Have any of you ever once contemplated that perhaps we should judge individuals based on individual actions rather than on political, social, racial, or religious affiliation?

Have any of you ever felt anger, sadness, frustration, etc when someone else unfairly tries to label you? We all have, right? What are we to do? Lower ourselves to their level? Or, should we elevate ourselves above the hateful and ignorant souls that do so much damage to our society?

We all have choices to make. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

yea man. i really tried to "understand" the other side, until it became clear they didn't want to be understood; they want to be obeyed.

i'm good on that. and these corporate dems who keep trying to be bipartisan with republicans who have zero interest in being bipartisan have turned me completely off, an have enabled more of this right wing nonsense by doing essentially nothing to pushback in fear of retribution are just as spineless as the republicans who look the other way.

Honestly OCD, looks like unfortunately i need to get firearms for protection. We got this place called point blank range in Mentor, and those guys were really chill when i asked about firearm safety training for the family. probably gonna get a membership.

and since these losers on the right are obsessed with playing Army, then lets play Army. except i wont be playing if they try that nonsense around me.

Yes, I believe in the right to freedom of speech? Don't you?

sorry Vers but these wanna be soldiers and their right wing views says that i'm the PROBLEM, and the solution is to either violently or politically force people who look like me out of this country.

don't expect me to just be ok with that. don't expect me to just be like "oh come guys lets talk it out". nah, their actions and rhetoric has sent the message loud and clear. i have zero interest in getting along with people who clearly hate me for no other reason than because i don't look or believe like they do.

unfortunately it always comes down to picking a side. so since the choice is melting pot or collection of demographics/ethnostate, i'mma roll with melting pot every single time. at least the food is better.

Sure, do you think we are animals? I think at heart, about 99.9% of people everywhere in the world are basically good people, including republicans. I just think mean and evil people smarter than they have led them astray, broken all the norms, created this chaos, and gained or maintained power due to it all. But now, half the country, reasonable, thinking, basically good women and men are under some kind of weird-ass mind control. It doesn't matter what we say, what evidence we show, or how much we try. They are on their path, being led by the nose, and slowly trying to normalize all of this BS. It doesn't matter what they have going on in life, if they are part of this, and support those evil SOBs no matter how many kids die, how many women are crushed, or how many lives they wreck; then they deserve to be called out for what they are. It's not a partisan issue anymore, it's a decency issue and a damn defense of our democracy issue.

There is also no riding the fence or not taking a side anymore either. You either want a democratic democracy, the way we've been since the founding, or some twisted form of authoritarian fascist corporatism. There is really no other choices, and sooner or later, guys like you will realize this too.

Just thought I would ask.

https://www.worldtribune.com/for-th...scent-from-prosperity-to-socialist-hell/

https://theendofhistory.net/venezuela-history-timeline-and-venezuela-crisis-timeline/


Gov't providing "free stuff" to everyone is a certain prescription for disaster. Educate yourself. Free stuff, free education, free.


It leads to..................inflation, that takes everyone other than the the rich, down.

But yeah, free stuff is good - til the free stuff can't be paid for.

Free stuff is great, but people dont appreciate it, and they want more free stuff. Free education isn't free. Free food isn't free. Free anything isn't free.

But, just "tax the rich". Right? You'll get a fancy named bill that claims to tax the rich, but which the rich paid for which eliminates them from the tax increases, but kills the middle class. You know, you can't have middle class voters voting for their best interests cause that would suck. You have to take the donations from the uber wealthy, come up with a fancy name for a bill, add in billions in said fancy named bill, tell everyone you're only trying to help the poor, allow 'outs' for the wealthy, and soak the middle class. Gas prices included, and heating your home. Next thing you know, people that were doing ok, aren't. Bam -

I was just responding. Sorry if what I see happening upset or hurt you, it was an honest answer.

hey guys, Arch is defending his corporate slave masters, AGAIN.

yawn.

and by the way, farmers are the biggest class of welfare queens in this country. they literally get paid to NOT grow certain crops and are subsidized through the roof.

how come you never talk about the free stuff they get? nevermind, i already know the answer to that.

You probably know as much about farming and owning ground and equipment as you do about .............

I wasn't hurt at all. I just think that there are good and bad people on both sides and individuals should be judged individually. My parents taught me that long ago when a black family moved into our 'hood. The first day, all the white kids played w/the new boy and girl who were black. The next day, the other white kids were not allowed to play w/the black kids. My parents hadn't said a word when they saw us playing that first day. The next day, my brother and I went to our parents and asked them what should we do. We explained that we liked the two new black kids, but the white kids said they wouldn't play w/us anymore if we played w/the black kids. It was upsetting.

Our parents did not tell us what to do. They asked questions. They asked if there was anything about the two black children that warranted us not playing w/them? For example, were they bullies? Did they steal? Lie? Cheat? We answered; "No."

They asked us how we would feel if others didn't want to play w/us because of how we looked? We said: "Bad."

They asked us if we would miss playing w/our white friends? We replied: "Yes."

They asked us if friends are truly real friends if they demand you act in a certain way? We said: "Huh?"

So my little bro and I went outside to talk it over. We decided to go across the street and play w/Martin and Jasmine. Had a riot. A couple of weeks later, some of the white kids would sneak around and play w/the four of us. Kids are more in tune w/the truth than adults in many situations.

I hope that helps....

Arch, you've been brain-washed and radicalized sir. Nobody is trying to give 'Free Stuff' to make America like Venezuela. And the rest of your rant falls under the same damn category of rhetoric with little to ZERO actual basis in reality. I get exactly what you think, and what the evidence is you are trying to present or back it with. But it is mostly lies with a bit of truth sprinkled in and is 100% dishonest in almost every way. Things you or somebody has heard from right-wing powerbrokers and then repeated until the lot of you think it's true like Christians have faith there's a god. Some of us see things from a perspective of people first, and just how messed up our unbridled capitalism and slavery-based founding has made this country. They've taken a dump on the original intentions of the founders to have a FREE, OPEN, ACCEPTING (they were traitors to the crown and at odds with Egland's primary religion BTW), EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL MEN (white of course or slavery doesn't work, and women chattel to be kept and used for domestic service and sex)SOCIETY. They just wanted a place where they could ALL PROSPER. Take out the disgusting bits in parenthesis, fix them, and you have an ALL-INCLUSIVE modern-day progressive wish list. We want the same stuff the founders wanted, you've been convinced that is somehow evil.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/jun/12/sheriffs-office-releases-names-of-31-patriot-front/

whats that? sorry i dont speak corporate. somebody please translate what Arch is trying to say. he trailed off with ........ so i know he got lost mid thought. product of the programming, i'm sure.

I think it's a quote from an alt-right coming out party or some crap. Eve liked it, so you know it was wackadoodle, mean, and gravy militia-level mentally phrased. So there's that?

Yo if the alt right want to make their dreams a reality, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming are literally right there for the taking. Nobody will bother them, then they can have their ethnostate, tell women how to dress and be submissive, not worry about minorities, bring their rifles into church, and worship trump as much as they like. The alt right American dream. Free from liberals and minorities

I wonder why all they do is talk, with only the fringe actually trying to do something about it, though. I mean they have the money, the high IQ’s, no LBGT, and plenty of natural resources. Should be a layup to build their utopia.

I'm invisible.

So much for having me on permanent ignore, eh?

Umm, where's the purple?

Not tonight buddy, I feel like we're making progress! I just saw you say tax the rich in another thread. That's a win and a step in the right direction! This moment deserves recognition.

j/c

In all this talk about true conservative values v. white ethno-national extremism, it occurs to me: if an ideological separation is to be made between the two, a true separation must be made BY the two. And that means only one thing: the White Conservative Christian Republican voter must call out, denounce, and bounce those in the party who do not represent their values.


Most of the people I know who are registered Republicans are of the "Eisenhower Republican" mold: limited federal gov't, personal responsibility, clear-eyed approach to emerging national problems, etc. Common-sense people who lean right. Folks who try to live by the values they hear on Sunday mornings. I can work with folks like that. I can laugh and love with folks like that. Always have/always will. Folks like this comprise the spine and skeletal structure that has made and kept this nation walking upright for almost 250 years.

These people are currently faced with an existential crisis within their ranks.

The face of their party is changing before our eyes. What was once a fringe element of rightist political ideology has now gained a crescendoing voice that is beginning to drown out the rational thinkers/speakers. Their beloved party (and the ideology they've always followed) is being pushed aside by an increasingly strident ethno-nationalist message. Look no further than Tucker Carlson's TV program as a window on this transformation. When he first took the gig at FOX News, he was essentially boilerplate mainline anti-left. ff to now: nearly 100% of his content is related to caravans from the south, pollution of "America's talent pool," and white grievance. 5 nights/week.

Tucker Carlson isn't the problem. Tucker Carlson is a by-product. He only blurts things that are certain to keep his numbers where they are/on the incline. That's his job. He's found his niche, and he's rolling hard in the paint to get that payday.

________________________


There are a ton of folks out here who have pulled the lever for Team Red out of ideology, habit, familiarity, team loyalty... but if they truly believe and live the values that define them- values that I understand, share (in many instances) and admire... it is their responsibility to place these reprehensible creatures back into the margins from whence they came. They've lived at the margins of America for good reason. Generations of good people have seen to it in the way we've collectively chosen to live in America, R or D.. These people are trying their hardest to take over the Republican Party as we've always known it. That is 'next-level' stuff- and requires the concerted efforts of individual Repub voters with the resolve of Liz Cheney.

My Republican Friends have a very big, very crucial fight on their hands, whether they like it or not/whether they believe it or not/whether they're prepared for it or not. It's going to be ugly, because it will define for the next 30+ years, what R stands for. I have personally shared time & space with My Dawgs jfanent, archboldawg, etc- and know them to be good people who do not believe any of the stuff espoused by the interlopers who are attempting to hijack their storied party.

It is their responsibility to 'clean house,' because if they don't, these new folks will completely take over the party my friends have supported for decades/generations. And they will have done so, even as folks like Clemdawg tried (repeatedly) to raise the alarm.


The GOP is at an existential crossroads.
In a 2-party political system, that prospect is absolutely terrifying.


.02

That was a nice post. But liberals are in the same boat. Moderate Dems v the fringe radical left.


I think at the end of the day the moderates and independents will determine the course because they are the majority,

Be careful. Beth Dutton will kick your ass.

oh please. you know damn well in real life she'd be in the cabin washing some dude's clothes by hand. I love her in yellowstone, but let's be real here bro. in that utopia, the women will be dressed like Amish or Mennonites. i just wonder if the christian men will cap the # of wives they're allowed to have at 5 or 6.

I agree w/you and Clem. It's the extremists on both sides that spread hate and want special privileges that turn me off. I have always despised the alt-right for their hateful beliefs. I understand that Clem is saying that they are becoming more prevalent and need to be stopped by the conservative, decent Republicans. I think a lot of people in the latter category voted to get Trump out of office in the last election. That proves that most folks are rational and champion fairness and equality.

On the other hand, even though I was a life-long Democrat, I have turned my back on the the far-left extremists. I do not condone burning down cities. I despise looting and rioting under the guise of justice. I strongly oppose reparations. I am 100 percent against defunding the police. I am against giving others more rights and having to pay for it so they don't have to work.

I believe that people from all groups should be afforded equal opportunities and fair and unbiased treatment. I believe that they should "earn" what they get instead of having things handed to them whether they are white and rich or black and poor. I have met a lot of new people on my sales calls and I think most people are decent folks who oppose the extremists on both sides. Thus, I believe that both parties take a long look at the extremists in their respective parties and work to diminish their respective voices and strive to working w/one another to help improve relations w/in our country.

jesus clem, why can't you just let me be angry? always gotta make an enlightening post and calm me down. so frustrating.

LOL......love well-timed humor.

We're hardly in the same boat. The far left is still the far left and fringe. But Tucker and company have trained you to believe that progressives like me are the far left. That corporate dems who act just like republicans are the only decent dems. That's ridiculous.

I've never been "party line Republican" any more than I've ever been "party line democrat". That's what pisses off people on both sides and why I get labeled by both sides. And I'm fine with that. I'll never be a sheep that blindly follows extremists on either side.

And Joy and company have trained you republicans are evil and racist. C'mon man, the media is there to get you mad so you buy stuff they advertise.

Ever notice how all they can do is scream "Venezuela!"? They never want to talk about most all of the rest of the free world and how they actually put their people over politics and are doing well. They find the worse case scenario and pretend that's that's the norm when anyone with a brain knows better.

Fair enough, won't be the last time I'm wrong thinking I understand somebody's POV from conversing. It happens.

Can you tell me exactly what that has to do with knowing who is getting billions and billions in subsidies? And the farmers certainly do. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing but if you're gong to keep droning on about government handouts, stop trying to pick and choose. Your claim has been that our government is handing out money to do nothing. When you hand out money for people not to grow crops, that's exactly what you're describing.

I do. But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't yell bomb on a plane. Inciting a riot is a crime. It seems more and more people are understanding that saying things that cause chaos is not actually about free speech.

I'm not quite sure where I draw the line on this so it's not like I'm trying to take a stand here. I'm just saying there certainly are limits to free speech.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is a fire. But go to the tired trope example.

Limiting a right should, at a minimum, require strict scrutiny.

So you have no legitimate response. Figures.

Keep in mind your opinion is not fact, if you don't like mine you can be insulting or make an actual argument. We see what you choose ad nauseum.

It seems you lack the understanding as to what an insult is. Either that or you're highly sensitive.


In case you missed it, this isn't an actual argument.

Ah, strict scrutiny. My bar exam repressed memories come back to haunt me.

You're not really saying anything differently than what he said there. It's a frequently-used example, but it's valid nonetheless. Given the fact you utilized the legalese phrase, I'm betting you also know about all the types of unprotected speech that have made it through the courts, which go beyond Pit's example. There's a whole host of unprotected speech categories that have survived judicial review. We just witnessed a huge celebrity trial covering one of them.

I, like you, am also a proponent of the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech, but I certainly don't disagree with what the Court has determined to be categories of unprotected speech either. It seems like "incitement" seems to be the hot topic category of today (or I suppose defamation if you're more into celebrity stuff than politics).

Direct incitement seems to be a valid category for being unprotected, but even then it is slippery. We have to be careful with the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" method of restricting rights. Is a bunch of teenagers in a theatre yelling fire actually incitement or is it just annoying and stupid? What about a more mature person that might be taken more seriously?

Enumerated constitutionally protected rights should not be restricted if there is another way of mitigating abuse, in my opinion. That said I am a fan of freedom and I believe in personal responsibility, I don't believe the government is here to nanny us and for the most part should stay way from our rights. This isn't always a popular opinion.

For what it's worth, I don't see "hate speech" as direct incitement and I do believe it should be protected. I don't have to like what someone says, or agree with it, to agree with their right to say it. I get this is even less a popular opinion in the shout at each other political debate world.

This was.

We know the test. It just has to be applied in the various scenarios. Is the restricting construct narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest? Roberts himself came out and emphasized that narrowly tailored does not equate to "perfectly tailored."

j/c...

Hat tip to the tipster who called police.

Just the same as the "Left" and the "Libtards" -- obviously.

With the exception of limiting Women's Rights and what they do with their bodies. Then it's not a right - it was a mistake but the SC.

Straw argument, especially since you seem to be indicating I approve of an abortion ban.

‘Pack Your Stuff and Get Out of My House,’ Says Patriot Front Member’s Mom

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pack-stuff-house-says-patriot-003530647.html

27 years old and was still living at moms house.

Funny that’s the image you used, because that’s the kind of women these losers believe they’re ENTITLED to date lmao

Which really wasn't much different than what I was saying. Had you stuck to it that would have been fine. We were on our way to at least some form of agreement to at least a great extent. But while you always seem to be the one pointing the finger, you couldn't help but put that snide comment in there. Don't feel like I'm pointing the finger at you alone, I do the same thing. The only difference seems to be I step up and own it.

You see, the yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling bomb on an airplane aren't the only limits. There's libel, defamation, slander and inciting a riot. All force accountability on the one stating or publishing their words. I'm not for further limits on free speech just like yourself. I do however look at the world around me today and wonder if and when these laws need to be more firmly enforced.

I'm not commenting on your specific views about abortion bans. Just in general - rights need to be protected - except when women's rights are involved. That seems to be a trend. Gay and LGBQT rights too possibly by extension based on the draft opinion. Based on your response - and possible neutrality or anti-roll back stance on Roe vs Wade ... you sound like you agree.

I made a clarifying remark and you get your panties bunched.

You can, indeed, yell fire in a theatre. A more correct statement on the limits of free speech would be you can't yell fire in a theatre to incite panic and a riot.

To be fair, the statement for yelling fire is so very overused by people who have no real idea what they are talking about when discussing a right.

Example: No right is absolute, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre so it seems natural that you can't have semi-automatic firearms.

You like to be pedantic and find the littlest flaw to argue, but no no, you shouldn't be subjected to the same.

I wonder if Nicholas Roske was as well.

You, as per your usual self ignored that I said I did the same thing. How convenient of you. You ignored that I pointed out that libel, slander and defamation were also limits on free speech. Once again you have no desire to to have a discussion or you would have addressed those points.

I don't care what you post or how you post. Just try manning up and owning it. I have no problem admitting I'm very snarky, sarcastic and more direct than some people care for. But you refuse to do the same.

a loser? absolutely. glad his sister got him to come to his senses. but he's absolutely a loser.

see how easy it is to call things out and not go "but whatabout"

try it sometime.

I apologize. I must have missed where you made fun of Nicholas Roske for being 26 and living at home like a looser.

"but whatabout" is the name of the game around these here parts so often. Biden's economy is bad "but whatabout the criminal" Trump is horrible "but what about the dude that doesn't know where they are".

It is part and parcel of political "discourse" these days. You hold up an example of something you don't like, but to be honest both sides have the stuff.

And yet when treated to the same you complain. Maybe you should go off for self reflection and realize when you give people BS you are going to see it returned to you.

To be fair,you said something similar, but with less precision than I did, originally. You have also said it in the past. You seem to like finding those little imprecise things to wedge your arguments into, but again you don't appreciate the turn around of it.

he is absolutely a loser.

you brought him up. i called him a loser.

i dont need to bring up trump or anyone else. there is zero defense for clowns like this. dont care what you believe, the moment you threaten other people physically over politics, you're a bum.

Pointing something obvious out isn't complaining. Hypocrisy is a dish best served cold. Here you were claiming you wanted a discussion and yet still refuse to engage in it. Par for the course. It's obvious you do not wish to discuss the topic no matter how much you lied about it.

As of January 2022

34% of Americans say violence against government is sometimes justified, new poll finds

Thirty-four percent of Americans think violent action against the government is sometimes justified, according to a new poll from The Washington Post and the University of Maryland released days ahead of the one-year anniversary of the insurrection at the US Capitol.

The new figure “is considerably higher than in past polls by the Post or other major news organizations dating back more than two decades,” according to the newspaper. The survey, conducted between December 17 and 19, revealed stark partisan splits on the question: 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence against government is sometimes justified, compared to 23% of Democrats.

In a separate CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, 62% of Americans said they expect violence over losing in future presidential elections; 38% said they expect the losing side will concede peacefully. At least a quarter of Americans said “force might be justified,” depending on the situation, regarding issues like civil rights, gun policies, election results and labor.

Thursday marks the one-year anniversary of the January 6 attack, during which supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop lawmakers from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Rioters attacked law enforcement officers and destroyed parts of the iconic building, with the violent event leading to the deaths of multiple people the day of the attack or shortly thereafter, while several officers who responded to the Capitol during the attack later died by suicide.

The Post-UMD poll found 60% of Americans feel Trump bears “a great deal” or “good amount” of responsibility for his role in the attack. Self-identified Republicans and Trump supporters in the poll tended to think he bears less responsibility.

In the CBS News-YouGov poll, 62% of Americans said they think Trump should “not seek the presidency again,” while 26% said he should run in 2024. The former President has not announced a bid for a second term but is seen by many as the likely Republican frontrunner should he run again.

Shortly after the insurrection, the House impeached Trump for inciting the mob, though he was later acquitted by the Senate in a vote that took place after his tenure ended. A small minority of Republicans voted with Democrats to impeach him in the House and convict in the Senate, but Trump has continued to hold significant influence over the direction of the GOP, with his loyalist members downplaying the violence on January 6 in the months since the attack.

The Post-UMD survey found that 54% of Americans believe rioters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent,” while 19% view them as “mostly peaceful,” and another 27% see them as “equally peaceful and violent.” Democrats were much more likely to view them as mostly violent (78%) compared to Republicans (26%).

There was more agreement about violence against law enforcement officers that day, with 87% saying they think “some protesters injured police officers” and 10% saying “everyone acted peacefully.”

More than 700 people have been charged by the Justice Department in connection with the Capitol riot, with the offenses ranging from illegally entering the building to assaulting officers and members of the media.

The Post-UMD poll was conducted among 1,101 adults online and by phone. The overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The CBS-YouGov poll was conducted from December 27 to December 30 among 2,063 adults. The overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/02/politics/january-6-poll-violence-against-government/index.html

so since i'll be getting professional training for the fam, what do you think i should start my daughters off with?

i was thinking a M9 to learn, but maybe a rocket launcher or flamethrower would be more appropriate.

House passes expanded security for Supreme Court justices’ families, 27 Democrats vote ‘no’


The House passed a bill on Tuesday that would provide security protections to family members of Supreme Court justices, sending the measure to President Biden’s desk for final approval.

The legislation, dubbed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, cleared the House in a 396-27 vote, with only Democrats objecting to the measure.

Passage in the lower chamber comes more than a month after the Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent — meaning all 100 lawmakers signed off on the measure, allowing it to clear without having to go through a formal vote.

The bill offers “around-the-clock security protection” to family members of Supreme Court justices and “any officer” of the bench if the Court Marshall deems it necessary, protections similar to those received by some executive and congressional officials.

Supreme Court justices already have federal protection.

The month-long delay was the result of a standoff between the House and Senate: Democrats in the lower chamber wanted to pass an expanded bill that also offered protections to Supreme Court staff, including judicial clerks, if the Court Marshall deemed it necessary.

Senate Republicans, however, were refusing to pass that bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Monday that the House version “is not going to pass the Senate.”

“The security issue is related to Supreme Court justices, not nameless staff that no one knows,” he added.

On Tuesday night, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) revealed that the House would vote on the Senate bill, sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Coons (D-Del).

Asked why Democrats had decided to accept the Senate version as written, Hoyer said “I can’t really give you an explanation, because adding more employees doesn’t seem like a very controversial thing to do.”

Hoyer added he was “surprised” by the Senate pushback to the expanded proposal. “But it is what it is. And we’re going to move the bill,” he added.

The Senate introduced the security bill days after Politico sent shockwaves throughout the country by publishing a draft majority opinion that showed the bench prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old Supreme Court decision that safeguards the right to abortion on the federal level.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the draft opinion that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” adding that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.”

Protests broke out across the country following the leak, and abortion rights activists, the Biden administration and Democrats countrywide are reportedly preparing a range of actions should Roe be overturned.

A final ruling in the case — involving a Mississippi law that outlaws nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — is expected by the end of the month.

Republicans upped the pressure to pass the bill last week, after an armed man who said he wanted to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh was arrested near the justice’s home and charged with attempted murder.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made three requests to pass the bill by unanimous consent over the past week, all of which failed.

In remarks from the House floor Tuesday, McCarthy said he was “glad” Democratic leadership brought the Senate bill up for a vote, but questioned why it took so long.

“The House Democrats have delayed it for more than a month. The question the American public asks is why? Why would you delay it?” McCarthy said.

“We have all known that additional security has been necessary since the Dobbs opinion was leaked last month,” he added, citing the Supreme Court leak before pointing to the assassination attempt of Kavanaugh.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), during debate of the bill on the House floor Tuesday, said “in the interest of protecting the justices’ families we can no longer delay in passing the only version of the bill [Republicans] would apparently agree to.”

He called the Senate bill “the best we can get,” adding in a separate comment “I hope we will move swiftly another bill to extend protection to families of employees as well.”

The California Democrat blamed Republicans for delaying the vote, condemning his colleagues across the aisle for not getting on board with the expanded measure that also offered protection to families of employees.

“Let me tell you why it took us a few weeks rather than just one week to pass this legislation. It’s because Republicans refuse to protect the families of Supreme Court employees who are at risk,” Lieu said. “Shame on you for not doing that.”

Congressman Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) accused Democrats of holding up the security bill as a way to protect the individual who leaked the draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.

The leaker is not known to the public, and the underlying motivation remains unclear. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the leak, though no details have been provided since.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on the House floor said the bill “should’ve passed a darn long time ago,” adding “better late than never.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ections-to-supreme-court-family-members/


The damn GOPers were out acting like dems didn't want to pass protection, while dems actually wanted it extended to court employees who also receive threats as well. Shameful double talk and innuendos because it was Republicans refusing to protect employees.

Use the AK-15. It's all the rage these days and seems that people claim it's great for not only hunting, but shooting and home protection as well. From that description it sounds like the best weapon ever invented.

NYT columnist calls out media downplaying Kavanaugh assassination attempt

Douthat said assassination attempt would've "undoubtedly received" massive attention if it had come from the right

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-columnist-calls-media-downplaying-kavanaugh-assassination-attempt

Yep, 2 sets of Laws and now 2 sets of Morals in Amerika.

Shame!

Tears for beers Kavanaugh was never in any real danger. Oh the faux victimhood of the thin-skinned MAGATS is just priceless. They should assign some gravy militia to protect him, that's all he deserves.

again, ill care about the SC when they start caring as much about our kids dying due to gun violence. until then, those SC judges go down the street to a gun store and protect themselves like they expect everyone else to.

https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/strelkovoe-oruzhie/assault-rifles-/AK-15/


ooo this one?

jc

so i want to thank Pit for putting me onto the AK-15. i decided imma keep the russian theme going, and instead of building a crib, i'm going to build a nuclear warhead facility, obtain an operational nuke, and declare my 4 acre land an independent country. if if the US government tries to stop me, i'll threaten a nuclear strike....on omaha, nebraska.

You're quite welcome. As even the ad you gave the link to says......

"Larger caliber, better ergonomics, higher accuracy. AK-15 has all the merits of this iteration and uses widespread caliber which provides great selection of ammunition types in 7.62x39mm for your unrivalled performance at the shooting range and in combat."

It's combat ready! And people sit on here and try to act like it wasn't designed for military use. Even the manufacture says that's not so. And they're marketing it as such to the public. Because you know, the public needs to be combat ready.

and just like that... you are now on the FBI watch list.

You say that like he wasn't already....

ive been on the list for years now most likely.

Lol, well they made the list. Their addresses and mugshots have circled the globe by now, and I imagine intense background checks or dirt are being compiled as I post. This crew is screwed outside of White Supremacists' circles. And it is 1000% justified IMO.

How come conservatives never accuse these guys of being losers and not having jobs because they’re protesting like they say to the left?

they are losers and probably don't have jobs because they are being slipped cash to go protest.

Because they have secret club meetings and hate the same things?

Who? Conservatives?

I haven't seen a true conservative still claiming to be Republican for years. No true conservative would tolerate Trump.

And pray tell who is it you think are slipping them cash? This should be rich.

A Michigan police chief has issued a public apology after reports that targets with images of Black men were seen at his department's target practice area.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/us/farmington-hills-police-department-black-target/index.html

Maybe they were silhouettes to better see at a distance. Even if so, who cares?

I do.
For obvious reasons.

LOL - in a country where Replacement Theory is a thing ... where people on this very board have tried to argue that White Replacement Theory is actually a thing ... and that's cool. But put images of (only) Black people on targets to shoot at them by law enforcement and that's no big deal? In a country where law enforcement is rife with institutional racism ... this is cool? LOL.... actually a lot of law enforcement in a lot of countries is rife with institutional racism, I shouldn't single out the USA.

The media and social media are downplaying or hiding important information like...

The department uses images of a dozen different people, 10 of whom are white and two Black.

They are only hiding it from people who can't read.... since it is IN THE ARTICLE that you have quoted.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/03/us/farmington-hills-police-department-black-target/index.html

Damn, they really are saying the hidden parts out loud these days.

______________


I've been able to hear them all my life- even when their quiet s# stayed (relatively) quiet.
For me, it's been as transparent as Saran Wrap since I was about 10,11 years old.

None of this surprises me in the least.
From any poster on this board, or any random yahoo on the street.

#MyAmericanlLife

Clem, my friend. It's a damn shooting target.




How many times has this guy been shot? I know I have shot him at least 100 times.

They are losers.