Trump 2024?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 minutes ago, K D said:

. But I didn't know what hard work was until I opened my own business and it was either sink or swim

Many white collar workers start their own biz.  We know what it's like to make payroll, to fund profit sharing, to be exhausted.  To go home with a beeper that goes off at the most inopportune times and removes you from home.  Very often to take care of someone who won't pat you (ie uninsured)..  Bleeding hands or bleeding heart, they're both substantial.  C'mon, back pain?  Tell  a surgeon.  You have no claim of authority over who works hard.  Pi$$es me off.

[4th&long]

 

 

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, K D said:

Mandatory gun buybacks is against the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. So you are a traitor.

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."

[SectionC3]

5 hours ago, K D said:

His posts are trash so it was mostly in regards to the first line. But we can talk jobs.

 

Physical labor where your muscles give out, you injure yourself but have to keep going to get the job done before it gets dark, you come home dirty and sweaty and collapse on the couch and your back is locked up but your kids want to play but you can't hold them because your hands are sore and bleeding. And then you have to wake up and do it all over again. Now that's grueling.

 

My white collar job early in my career was so easy that it was like a day off. I worked "hard" in that I was a go-getter and worked longer hours to get ahead which led to promotion after promotion. But I didn't know what hard work was until I opened my own business and it was either sink or swim. It's 24/7, there are no breaks or time off and if you fail you go out of business and everything you worked for is ruined. It's mentally and physically draining and I haven't had to do it for many years but I don't expect anyone to do something that I won't do myself so I stay in the trenches.

 

And now if I sell Kamala wants 44% of my capital gains. Get lost creep. I did this for my family not for some illegal aliens to get free debit cards and hotels. She call literally F all the way off. People who work hard like me are not going to take this absurdity. We want to do what we have to do and to be left alone.

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. 

5 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Many white collar workers start their own biz.  We know what it's like to make payroll, to fund profit sharing, to be exhausted.  To go home with a beeper that goes off at the most inopportune times and removes you from home.  Very often to take care of someone who won't pat you (ie uninsured)..  Bleeding hands or bleeding heart, they're both substantial.  C'mon, back pain?  Tell  a surgeon.  You have no claim of authority over who works hard.  Pi$$es me off.

There's a lot of days I'd rather have the sore back than the stress, believe me. 

[SectionC3]

5 hours ago, K D said:

His posts are trash so it was mostly in regards to the first line. But we can talk jobs.

 

Physical labor where your muscles give out, you injure yourself but have to keep going to get the job done before it gets dark, you come home dirty and sweaty and collapse on the couch and your back is locked up but your kids want to play but you can't hold them because your hands are sore and bleeding. And then you have to wake up and do it all over again. Now that's grueling.

 

My white collar job early in my career was so easy that it was like a day off. I worked "hard" in that I was a go-getter and worked longer hours to get ahead which led to promotion after promotion. But I didn't know what hard work was until I opened my own business and it was either sink or swim. It's 24/7, there are no breaks or time off and if you fail you go out of business and everything you worked for is ruined. It's mentally and physically draining and I haven't had to do it for many years but I don't expect anyone to do something that I won't do myself so I stay in the trenches.

 

And now if I sell Kamala wants 44% of my capital gains. Get lost creep. I did this for my family not for some illegal aliens to get free debit cards and hotels. She call literally F all the way off. People who work hard like me are not going to take this absurdity. We want to do what we have to do and to be left alone.

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. 

[Tommy Callahan]

*****.  I told my doctor I wanted some valium for sleeping and testosterone for the gym. He said no.   He said there  are laws where he cannot give it to me simply cause I want it.  Effing government restricting and regulating my body.  

 

[SectionC3]

24 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

*****.  I told my doctor I wanted some valium for sleeping and testosterone for the gym. He said no.   He said there  are laws where he cannot give it to me simply cause I want it.  Effing government restricting and regulating my body.  

 

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

[4th&long]

31 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

*****.  I told my doctor I wanted some valium for sleeping and testosterone for the gym. He said no.   He said there  are laws where he cannot give it to me simply cause I want it.  Effing government restricting and regulating my body.  

 

Did you think when you posted this or were you just drunk? Let’s just have doctors hand out whatever drugs you walk in and ask for because that worked so well with pain killers! No wonder you can support trump. No brain or thinking and reasoning ability at all.

[K D]

5 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Many white collar workers start their own biz.  We know what it's like to make payroll, to fund profit sharing, to be exhausted.  To go home with a beeper that goes off at the most inopportune times and removes you from home.  Very often to take care of someone who won't pat you (ie uninsured)..  Bleeding hands or bleeding heart, they're both substantial.  C'mon, back pain?  Tell  a surgeon.  You have no claim of authority over who works hard.  Pi$$es me off.

I've done all of that and being on call and traveling and working long hours and mental stress etc and then I did physical labor. There's no comparison.

 

It's not the type of back pain that you get surgery for. Your muscles give out after a certain period of time. It starts in my hands and then my lower back due to tight hamstrings. Nothing you can do about it, the human body can only do so much. I used to be a powerlifter so I thought I'd be good but someone told me I have show muscles not go muscles and they don't help much.

 

I don't do that every day, sometimes I'm doing paperwork or marketing or sales but then the physical stuff is a different ballgame. You can think you work hard but go work construction or landscaping or roofing for 1 day where maybe it's just you and 1 other guy so you can't hide and slack off like a normal laborer. You will cry for your mommy and beg to go back to an office.

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

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."

Yes there are many ongoing court cases and decisions, most of which are political in nature, but all you have to do is read a history book. The  colonies were in a war with a tyrannical government that suppressed their rights. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the 1st. Simple as that. Shall not be infringed.

[K D]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

I don't want to regulate the bodies of anyone. Do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't bother me. Literally, everyone F off. Let me do my thing and you do your thing and I won't care as long as it doesn't impact my life negatively.

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, K D said:

I've done all of that and being on call and traveling and working long hours and mental stress etc and then I did physical labor. There's no comparison.

 

It's not the type of back pain that you get surgery for. Your muscles give out after a certain period of time. It starts in my hands and then my lower back due to tight hamstrings. Nothing you can do about it, the human body can only do so much. I used to be a powerlifter so I thought I'd be good but someone told me I have show muscles not go muscles and they don't help much.

 

I don't do that every day, sometimes I'm doing paperwork or marketing or sales but then the physical stuff is a different ballgame. You can think you work hard but go work construction or landscaping or roofing for 1 day where maybe it's just you and 1 other guy so you can't hide and slack off like a normal laborer. You will cry for your mommy and beg to go back to an office.

Yes there are many ongoing court cases and decisions, most of which are political in nature, but all you have to do is read a history book. The  colonies were in a war with a tyrannical government that suppressed their rights. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the 1st. Simple as that. Shall not be infringed.

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."

[K D]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

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."

If these people didn't write the Constitution then they don't know. They are interpreting it with their own political bias. This happens all the time with gun rights. The Left takes away rights, they challenge in court, the rights are restored, there is an appeal, they go away, they come back. Happens every 4 years. Weird how that works

[SectionC3]

Just now, K D said:

I don't want to regulate the bodies of anyone. Do whatever the heck you want as long as it doesn't bother me. Literally, everyone F off. Let me do my thing and you do your thing and I won't care as long as it doesn't impact my life negatively.

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.  

Just now, K D said:

If these people didn't write the Constitution then they don't know. They are interpreting it with their own political bias. This happens all the time with gun rights. The Left takes away rights, they challenge in court, the rights are restored, there is an appeal, they go away, they come back. Happens every 4 years. Weird how that works

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. 

[K D]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

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. 

Where does it say anything about muskets? In fact it was the same artillery that the national armies had so there is in fact no limit whatsoever. They are trying to take away our 1st amendment and next up is the 2nd. Good luck.

 

And the Left can't say anything about my body my rights when they force vaccines on people or you lose your job. What world are you living in? Neither side is innocent but I choose the one that isn't actively trying to take away my 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

And maybe some day those issues will switch sides as seems to be the case. 12 years ago the Dems were the ones for free speech and yet here we are.

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, K D said:

Where does it say anything about muskets? In fact it was the same artillery that the national armies had so there is in fact no limit whatsoever. They are trying to take away our 1st amendment and next up is the 2nd. Good luck.

 

And the Left can't say anything about my body my rights when they force vaccines on people or you lose your job. What world are you living in? Neither side is innocent but I choose the one that isn't actively trying to take away my 1st and 2nd amendment rights.

And maybe some day those issues will switch sides as seems to be the case. 12 years ago the Dems were the ones for free speech and yet here we are.

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.  

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

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.  

[K D]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

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.  

An arm is a musket? You just went full r*trd. Never go full r*trd

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, K D said:

An arm is a musket? You just went full r*trd. Never go full r*trd

 

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. 

Edited August 30 by SectionC3

[K D]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

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. 

Wrong that an arm is a musket? You and the liberal courts can continue to make up your own politically slanted interpretations and they will continue to get shut down on appeal. Shall not be infringed. Can't be any clearer than that.

[ChiGoose]

Not sure what his point is here. People aren’t eating bacon because of windmills that don’t generate power when there’s no wind?

[SectionC3]

13 minutes ago, K D said:

Wrong that an arm is a musket? You and the liberal courts can continue to make up your own politically slanted interpretations and they will continue to get shut down on appeal. Shall not be infringed. Can't be any clearer than that.

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. 

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Not sure what his point is here. People aren’t eating bacon because of windmills that don’t generate power when there’s no wind?

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. 

13 minutes ago, K D said:

Wrong that an arm is a musket? You and the liberal courts can continue to make up your own politically slanted interpretations and they will continue to get shut down on appeal. Shall not be infringed. Can't be any clearer than that.

So now you’re saying that a musket isn’t an arm? Totally out of your depth once again. 

Edited August 30 by SectionC3