TakeYouToTasker

I'm not so sure. It's an opinion that is so blatantly stupid that it doesn't even require a response.

Yeah, I'm basically a Jedi Knight, so that makes sense.

That's not real, right?

For the abject morons in the room, here is a link to Webster's Dictionary from 1828 You'll note that the definition itself includes mention of the laws surrounding militias. These are the regulations being spoken of. The sentence structure of the Second Amendment provides the government the authority to "regulate the militia". This means that the government has the authority to organize the militia to attend military exercises, given the common understanding of what the term militia means. This is consistent with the rest of the document written at the time, in which the Document painstaking lays out all the actions the Federal government is permitted to take. This is measured language, as it assigns a very specific power to the government.

The terms "militia" and "well regulated" conform to the common understanding of those words in the time they were written. There is ample source material: Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers, Black's, and even the US code which outlines the meanings of those words; and the simple diagraming of the sentence in question allows anyone with a 5th grade reading level to understand that "well regulated" modifies "militia", not the right to bear arms whose only modification is "shall not be infringed". As to the purpose of the Court, it requires the most revisionist historical perspective imaginable to ignore Marbury v Madison, where the Court awarded itself a power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. The Document does not require the Court's understanding. Stare Decisis requires the Courts understanding, as the Court no longer rules on the document itself, but rather on the body of law they themselves created with the power they usurped. And you're right, I don't belong at the children's table with you. I'm more than happy at the grownup's table where we don't **** our pants or throw our food. Also, it's probably for the best that you've decided against responding anymore, given how badly you're getting your ignorant ass kicked every time you open your mouth.

Good point. I never should have pressed him on sentence structure until he has mastered the basics.

No, you don't understand much at all. You frequently make poor arguments out of ignorance. This is another clear example. The Constitution was written at roughly a 5th grade reading level, in the plain English of the day. This is by design. If you diagram the !@#$ing sentence, and understand the meanings of the words in use at the time it was written, and the surrounding source material (Federalist, anti-Federalist, etc) there is zero ambiguity. Your argument is intellectually lazy and ignorant.

The Second Amendment is vague if you don't understand how the English language works. Do you not understand how the English language works?

I am, as are all people, fallible; sometimes I even make typos.

You might just be the dumbest sonofabitch on the entire internet. That's not even the smallest bit hyperbolic.

The term "illegal" is defined by the law itself. The fact that the law has been violated with impunity in the past does not mean that it should have been, and does not magically wishcast those violations of the law into the realm of legality. We do not live in a monarchy. We do not have a Sovereign imbued with the just and divine authority to rule by fiat. Our leaders are subject to law. President Trump isn't locking anyone up. He doesn't have that authority. Various courts, military and civilian, are. And to answer your timeline question, very soon.

I see you got the marching orders delivered by Anderson Cooper. Your narrative shift won't work. There is no context in which illegal use of our intelligence apparatus in violation of the rights of US citizens by the federal government is acceptable. None. It is a criminal act in all contexts, and makes the entire Trump-Russian investigation fruit of the poisonous tree in all contexts.

This is a bald-faced lie. You are a liar.

I would halt the Trump-Russia investigation because the intelligence gathering was done illegally. Nothing else matters beyond that point. Nothing. The government doesn't get to violate the rights of it's citizens by taking extra-legal action. Full stop. There is no nuance to be discussed here. It is, quite literally, the core principal of the founding of our entire type of government. The government has very specific limits to what it is permitted to do, especially in regards to the individual rights of it's citizens. Nothing else matters. The fact that you're quoting me out of context makes you: either stupid because you didn't understand the context (the part you quoted was in reference to a coup attempt, which has yet to be proven with direct evidence), or intellectually dishonest as Greg has demonstrated that the intelligence was illegally gathered with evidence that will hold up in a court of law.

Illegal says the law. That's why we have laws: to differentiate between things that are illegal and things that are not. The laws in question, put in place to act as constraints placed on the government, specifically it's policing apparatus, are significant because the people writing the laws have grave concerns about abuse of power. There are very specific protocols in place to those ends. The government doesn't get to break them just because they really want to, and when they do, all evidence gathered is considered inadmissible. Further, illegal investigations are not permitted to continue. What other gross violations of the law are you in favor of? Are you in favor of planting evidence to influence convictions? How about torturing someone to elicit a confession?

The law doesn't permit illegal intelligence gathering. Full stop. Explain to me the provision in the law which allows it to be broken with impunity by government actors. Then explain to me the purpose of laws forbidding certain government actions if those actions should be taken by government.

Again, reading comprehension. The fact that there was malfeasance by the government in the gathering of intelligence means that the investigation needs to halted for that reason alone. The government doesn't get to engage in criminal behavior in violation of the rights of it's citizens. Even if you really don't like the guy they're investigating. Any other "leaps" don't even matter in this regard. With what has been factually demonstrated means the investigation itself is fruit from the poisonous tree.

Democrats don't want solutions, they want campaign issues. If the problem gets solved they can't campaign on it.

You have a reading comprehension level of approximately zero point zero. What I expressed is/was a full throated endorsement of the work Greg has done/is doing. I resent, very much, any attempts by you, or anyone else, to paint my words as anything other than endorsement. I choose my words very carefully, because words have specific meanings. You apparently don't understand this, or are devoutly intellectually dishonest. This is not a political issue. This is an issue about the health of our democracy, and the legitimacy of our federal government: the two things that the concept of rights and their protection hinge very delicately upon. It's also about the very nature of our concept of law. Greg is demonstrating that the Trump/Russia investigation was, at best, conducted by using illegal methods of intelligence gathering and at worst that it was part of a coup attempt. But even in that best case scenario the government doesn't get to investigate anyone using illegal methods, and when they do those investigations need to be halted immediately, and those who engaged in illegal activities in their investigative roles need to be prosecuted. That's how free societies work. That's how the law works. The government doesn't get to do that. Even if it's to investigate a President you find very unpalatable.

Do you even diagram sentences, bro?

Then it's incumbent on you to refrain from posting, not on anyone else to indulge your laziness or stupidity. I, for one, hope Greg keeps tearing apart your myopic, regurgitated "arguments" for the benefit of the community at large. What Greg is posting about is far too important to the country to let die on the vine, or to allow the stupid and lazy to be the propaganda tools of those who would overthrow the Republic.

Careful there.

Bear in mind I say this as a man who started his journey down Greg's rabbit hole as a very well documented "Never Trump" libertarian. I have had many lengthy conversations, both publicly and in PMs, with Greg about his assertions. He's never shied away, lied, or claimed to have information he didn't have. He is very careful to differentiate between verifiable facts directly provable with evidence, and things he holds to be speculations where direct non-circumstantial evidence is currently unavailable. He is engaging, and has never, not even one time, failed to respond to any questions I have asked him, no matter how hard, or where they might lead. I work with creating and refining logical processes, spending large portions of my day breaking down data and business processes, searching for inefficiencies or inaccuracies in order to correct them; and while I have absolutely found instances where Greg believes something to be true which has yet to be proven with hard evidence, I have not found any single one of them to be logically inconsistent with the chain of evidence he presents. In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided. Your problem is that you haven't read the case he is laying out in it's entirety. You're "spot checking", which invariably leads to incomplete understanding, unreviewed evidence, and an incomplete diagram of events.

If someone has been cleared of wrong doing by the investigative body charged with investigating them for wrong doing, in a political environment where it would be advantageous to charge them with just about anything they can make stick, even legal fiction like "process crimes", it's fairly safe to say they didn't do anything wrong.

That's bull ****. As if Kevin Spacey would ever draw pictures of children without genitals.