The Thread of Democrats

[Tero]

The 2nd is not a right to bear arms amendment. It never was. States had control of that. Still do, if you read the constitution. It is a militia amendment, allowing states to keep feds out.

[Hermit]

You can’t actually be proud of the US while we have a joke for a president.

So conditional patriotism for this democrat..

You seem to have the "My country, right or wrong;" attitude towards patriotism. How would you justify that?

I kind of feel sorry for Carl Schurz, the author of the above quote, for more often than not, the rest of the sentence he uttered is ignored. It goes: "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

He is also on record for saying "We have come to a point where it is loyalty to resist, and treason to submit."

And good luck trying to portray Schurz as unpatriotic.

Major-General Carl Schurz c. 1863

Carl Schurz.jpg (27.63 KiB) Viewed 3651 times

[Sean Hayden]

Whatever the original intent Tero, it has more recently been interpreted as a right to bear arms and for more than keeping the feds out. I'm not sure how much traction you'll get arguing against modern sentiment using the intentions of the founding fathers.

[JimC]

There must be some tension amongst the extreme right wing, given the undying hatred of fundamentalist Islam for the Jews, and that they hate them both...

Nazis don't hate Muslims nearly as much as they hate Jews. Never have. Hitler himself allied with the Grand Mufti and the Muslim forces in the middle east. Hitler liked Islam better than Christianity - https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-revie ... 1421441724

However, a fairly defining feature of the extreme right wing in most western countries recently has been a violent opposition to immigration, almost always involving anti-Islam sentiments. Can't say they're not evolving - they may even reach the slime mould stage!

[laklak]

Can't fault a bit of good, old fashioned Patriotism. Not an unseemly amount, of course. Hoorah! Hoorah!

That should be sufficient.

[Forty Two]

There must be some tension amongst the extreme right wing, given the undying hatred of fundamentalist Islam for the Jews, and that they hate them both...

Nazis don't hate Muslims nearly as much as they hate Jews. Never have. Hitler himself allied with the Grand Mufti and the Muslim forces in the middle east. Hitler liked Islam better than Christianity - https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-revie ... 1421441724

However, a fairly defining feature of the extreme right wing in most western countries recently has been a violent opposition to immigration, almost always involving anti-Islam sentiments. Can't say they're not evolving - they may even reach the slime mould stage!

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

[rainbow]

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

Care to list the good elements?

[Forty Two]

The 2nd is not a right to bear arms amendment. It never was. States had control of that. Still do, if you read the constitution. It is a militia amendment, allowing states to keep feds out.

With all due respect to your legal expertise, the US Supreme Court specifically held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. DC v Heller, affirming the Circuit Court of Appeals' holding that DC's firearms regulation violated the second amendment because it infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Forty Two]

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

Care to list the good elements?

My qualification is only because of differing definitions of what constitutes extreme right. Some people call Donald Trump "extreme right." By my definition of extreme right, encompassing fascists, Nazis, the KKK and the like, they are all bad elements. By the Progressive leftist definition of anyone to the right of Chairman Mao, I would say there are plenty of good elements.

[rainbow]

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

Care to list the good elements?

My qualification is only because of differing definitions of what constitutes extreme right. Some people call Donald Trump "extreme right." By my definition of extreme right, encompassing fascists, Nazis, the KKK and the like, they are all bad elements. By the Progressive leftist definition of anyone to the right of Chairman Mao, I would say there are plenty of good elements.

So again you use the definitions of those you disagree with to prop up your argument.

[Tero]

The 2nd is not a right to bear arms amendment. It never was. States had control of that. Still do, if you read the constitution. It is a militia amendment, allowing states to keep feds out.

With all due respect to your legal expertise, the US Supreme Court specifically held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. DC v Heller, affirming the Circuit Court of Appeals' holding that DC's firearms regulation violated the second amendment because it infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

That is why I am not a fan of the Supreme Court. A political arm. If nothing else, solve any problem with Commerce Clause.

[Forty Two]

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

Care to list the good elements?

My qualification is only because of differing definitions of what constitutes extreme right. Some people call Donald Trump "extreme right." By my definition of extreme right, encompassing fascists, Nazis, the KKK and the like, they are all bad elements. By the Progressive leftist definition of anyone to the right of Chairman Mao, I would say there are plenty of good elements.

So again you use the definitions of those you disagree with to prop up your argument.

No, what are you on about?

Recognizing that there is a disagreement on meanings is not a use of the other's meaning. The difference between left and extreme left is a large grey area with differing opinions, same with the right and the far right. So, really, to discuss any issue of the extreme right or left it's important to focus in and try to agree on a meaning. When dipshits talk about "punching Nazis" for example, they're often not referring to actual Nazis, but rather people who they label Nazis even though they aren't that (by common English usage).

[Forty Two]

The 2nd is not a right to bear arms amendment. It never was. States had control of that. Still do, if you read the constitution. It is a militia amendment, allowing states to keep feds out.

With all due respect to your legal expertise, the US Supreme Court specifically held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. DC v Heller, affirming the Circuit Court of Appeals' holding that DC's firearms regulation violated the second amendment because it infringed on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

That is why I am not a fan of the Supreme Court. A political arm. If nothing else, solve any problem with Commerce Clause.

With all due respect to your legal expertise, the Commerce Clause is in the main body of the Constitution, and it is therefore "limited" by the amendments. Thus, an otherwise constitutional commerce clause based law would be unconstitutional if it violated the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. Similarly, where an otherwise valid regulation on firearms would violate the 2nd amendment, then the law is unconstitutional.

[rainbow]

The extreme right wing has bad elements. Racial superiority types and fascists are beneath slime, I agree.

Care to list the good elements?

My qualification is only because of differing definitions of what constitutes extreme right. Some people call Donald Trump "extreme right." By my definition of extreme right, encompassing fascists, Nazis, the KKK and the like, they are all bad elements. By the Progressive leftist definition of anyone to the right of Chairman Mao, I would say there are plenty of good elements.

So again you use the definitions of those you disagree with to prop up your argument.

No, what are you on about?

I'm trying to find out who YOU think are the good extreme right-wingers.

Stop trying to dodge the question.

[Tero]

The 2nd amendment, a one sentence ...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... militia%22
The court went and REDEFINED militia. In colonial times it had a clear meaning. Nothing of the King or US federal government. Strictly the state militia.

"the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[11]" Wiki