SectionC3

JD is such a whiner. Maybe he should go raw dog a living room set to help him calm down. Weird.

Hoax. Going to a MAGA rally must really bring out the waterworks in you. It's a uniquely toxic brew of heart disease, diabetes, dumb, and weird all in one location.

Aren't you the guy who a few days ago said he doesn't care about what other people do? Why so worried about controlling women and limited bodily freedom? And you call other people commies. Weird. MAGA is a toxic stew of selfish, dumb, and weird. No doubt about it. I bet if Westside gets out of mom's basement, slaps a little duct tape on that 2011 Maxima, and gets that moderately functional pile of s to Mar-a-Lago he will be welcomed with open arms. Don Jr. might even take a break from shooting zoo animals to escort Westside to meet "45" by the pool, where they can munch fast food, text Kim Jong Un, and dance the night away to the best the 80s have to offer.

Last I checked she's not the one who tried to overthrow the government and the Constitution on January 6. I have no idea what this weird gibberish means. Hoax.

Phony P is back! Weird, actually, is supporting the bashing of cops with fire extinguishers on January 6. That's weird. That's a lot of hoax in one paragraph. You have a vivid imagination. Not a lot of smarts, but an active imagination.

Hoax. It was ineffective and It gave people a false sense of security. See above.

You must be pretty mad at yourself about all of that bum HCQ advice.

Good point. This isn't about assigning blame, but accepting responsibility. Rational people wonder what they could have done better when they have or may have involvement in a situation such as this one. Maybe leaving that hard deadline for someone else wasn't a great plan. And maybe there's a little bit of responsibility to be accepted there. And maybe, just maybe, if a rational actor had been president from 2016-2020, that person would not now exploit that situation given the possibility that they should accept some responsibility for what occurred. I don't know who is responsible for what in this scenario. But if I might have played even a small role in the deaths of 13 service members, there's no way I would be politicking in front of one of their tombstones. Not a chance. And that's the difference between rational people and the weirdos like Trump.

This too is gibberish.

Hoax. “Arm” has a definition in that time. Your construction—an impermissible exercise, according to the literalists and the traditionalists—would require a savings clause, such as, “any arms now in existence or that may come into existence.” Sure thing. Maybe you can whine a little more about inflation out of one side of your mouth and then call everyone else a commie out of the other side of your mouth. When it’s not full of HCQ, of course.

Get out your late-1700s dictionary and get to work. If you’re going to play the literalist game then you better have an explanation for how the drafters could have meant to protect something that did not at that time exist. That’s the flaw with originalism and literalism. And, far as “can’t be infringed goes,” I’ll remind you that probably the most conservative justice of his time wrote heller. He disagrees with you. Why? Likely because there’s a difference between a reasonable restriction and an infringement. He doesn’t know what the point is, either. Kind of like that K D guy here. They just make it up as they go along. So now you’re saying that a musket isn’t an arm? Totally out of your depth once again.

I have no idea what this nonsense means.

Go for it. Get your Blackstone out. Resort to name calling, because that's all you have. You're completely, utterly, entirely wrong, and you know it. Otherwise we'd get a response on the merits. But all you have is name calling. You're miles out of your depth, and you don't know what you're talking about.

That's capitalism and Jacobson for you. If you don't like it, then become a commie. What was an "arm" when the constitution was written? A musket. So if you're playing the literalist game, you get a musket. Anything that wasn't an "arm" back then you don't get today, because it couldn't have been embraced by the operative definition of "arm." So enjoy your musket, under your view of the second amendment. Also, you're so twisted up right now that you're characterizing Scalia as a member of the "left." This is rich and a new level of clueless, even for MAGA. All you have is the red ex. Because you know you're wrong.

I'm going to guess that Obama and Biden were, like, in office at the time and performing official duties, whereas Trump today is a private citizen who was playing politics in front of the graves of our fallen heroes. So there's your easy explanation.

Unfortunately MAGA doesn't feel the same way that you do. MAGA wants to regulate bodies. MAGA wants to affect the lives of others. Remember the vaccination debates? There's this little thing called Jacobson v Massachusetts that MAGA ignored then and continues to ignore now. MAGA is about freedom only on MAGA's terms and only to the extent MAGA desires. You're tap dancing down the wrong path here. If you want to play the literalist game--who wrote the Constitution and the meaning of the words at the time they were written--then enjoy your musket and be prepared to hand over every other gun you own. Also, Scalia--the guy who wrote Heller--was an arch conservative. FYI. You're out of your depth here, and you're also wrong.

Wrong. Antonin Scalia disagrees with you. Try actually reading Heller, especially this part: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Hoax. Nobody is regulating your body. The regulation is of substances outside of your body.

And yet MAGA wants to regulate the bodies of women and what people are allowed to read. You're also all twisted up about "woke"--whatever that is--and concerned about people who live their lives openly and honestly. So you really don't want to be left alone. You want the government not to bother you, but to impose your values on others and to bother them.

You're talking about a number that is intended to impact billionaires. Read from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewleahey/2024/04/24/biden-capital-gains-rate-proposal-446/. Good for you if you have the assets, but I have a hard time believing you're in what could be that highest tax bracket. There's a lot of days I'd rather have the sore back than the stress, believe me.

Hoax on both counts. You may want to do such things as read these phrases that pay from Heller: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession 2817*2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26] We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State,16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874). "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

Hoax.

There's a fair amount of misstatement and overreaching by the poster who shared the videos. For example, define "defund." (And question whether it's markedly different from Trump's push to defund the FBI.). Put "mandatory buybacks" in context. "Decriminalization," too, is somewhat misleading. The idea that Harris wishes to abolish ICE simply isn't true. There's a lot to unpack, so I'll stop here for the night.

Self-made and tons of hustle here. "Working folks" was intentional. This guy is bad for blue collar and bad for white collar. Protectionism is a terrible, terrible idea and it's only going to get worse.

January 6 ring a bell? And, I’d like to see the “record” of the things that you’re talking about.