Another reason to thank President Trump

[41bear]

It appears that this may end up headed to the Supreme Court.

http://www.theconservativedispatch.com/2...firmation/

[TomSawyerNW]

Admittedly, I just skimmed through the article, but does this mean if I lie on my tax returns, I also lose my right to free speech, etc.? Seems everything is focused on our losing our 2nd amendment rights.

[grayfox]

Especially since several states are now re-granting felons the right to vote, which in the discussion is a so-called civic right. So now, if even civic rights can be restored after a felony, then EVEN IF 2A is supposedly a civic right (presumably a lower level right than an individual, which Heller does state that it is an individually conferred right to protect ones self), continued rejection of a civic right is now collapsing. So the 3d circuit ruling is further weakened even from its primary reasoning.
Not only this, we should project the 3d ckt reasoning, to a convicted felon loses free speech, loses right to petition his government, right to be secure from unreasonable searches/seizures, right to Not be discriminated against, right to freedom of religion, right to not incriminate himself, and stripped of the right to not be placed twice in jeopardy for life/limb for the same offense.
The 3d ckt reasoning basically says that a so-called "felony" (even if non-violent) basically strips a person of ALL rights forever.
Only those ("felons") that kow-tow to them or serve their purposes, would get any right(s) back. "Rights" after all, they reason, are granted by the government (THEM). Not secured by an ancient piece of paper (let alone granted by God Himself).
What a crock.
And the Libs would certainly love this since they would craft laws to target first, conservatives, and ultimately, anyone who disagrees with them. Just listen to their political campaign promises.
To disagree with a Lib policy would be a felony.
Goodbye protected rights; Hello, dictatorship by the Libs over all.

[TexHill]

Especially since several states are now re-granting felons the right to vote, which in the discussion is a so-called civic right. So now, if even civic rights can be restored after a felony, then EVEN IF 2A is supposedly a civic right (presumably a lower level right than an individual, which Heller does state that it is an individually conferred right to protect ones self), continued rejection of a civic right is now collapsing. So the 3d circuit ruling is further weakened even from its primary reasoning.
Not only this, we should project the 3d ckt reasoning, to a convicted felon loses free speech, loses right to petition his government, right to be secure from unreasonable searches/seizures, right to Not be discriminated against, right to freedom of religion, right to not incriminate himself, and stripped of the right to not be placed twice in jeopardy for life/limb for the same offense.
The 3d ckt reasoning basically says that a so-called "felony" (even if non-violent) basically strips a person of ALL rights forever.
Only those ("felons") that kow-tow to them or serve their purposes, would get any right(s) back. "Rights" after all, they reason, are granted by the government (THEM). Not secured by an ancient piece of paper (let alone granted by God Himself).
What a crock.
And the Libs would certainly love this since they would craft laws to target first, conservatives, and ultimately, anyone who disagrees with them. Just listen to their political campaign promises.
To disagree with a Lib policy would be a felony.
Goodbye protected rights; Hello, dictatorship by the Libs over all.

Some states allowfelons to own a firearm for defense of their home and for hunting on their own property. For instance, Texas law allows a felon to own a gun if it's been at least five years since the completion of their sentence. The problem is that federal law says that a felon may never own a gun. Frankly, I think that if a person has done their time and has shown themselves to be a benefit to society then their rights should be restored.

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/news.../491829268

[Growler]

Some states allowfelons to own a firearm for defense of their home and for hunting on their own property. For instance, Texas law allows a felon to own a gun if it's been at least five years since the completion of their sentence. The problem is that federal law says that a felon may never own a gun. Frankly, I think that if a person has done their time and has shown themselves to be a benefit to society then their rights should be restored.

Agreed.

[Growler]

From the above mentioned article...

Heller , however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. Moore v. Madigan , 702 F.3d 933, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller , 554 U.S. at 595, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia, id. at 582–86, 128 S.Ct. 2783.”

Even though I agree with the original poster’s point and celebrate it as some good news, there is a chilling undertone to the 7th Circuit’s 2012 reference to Heller, which I believe is fundamentally flawed.

The Second Amendment does NOT confer a right to citizens, in contrast, it recognizes a natural-born right of citizens and restricts the government from infringing upon it. If the Bill of Rights merely lists rights conferred by government, they can be taken away by government. That is not what was intended by the founders, and no Originalist studied in history would reach that conclusion. We need to be informed and vocal on calling out this distinction. It is vital.

[LRRPF52]

Government doesn’t confer any rights on free people.

Free people agree to empower government with certain enumerated and limited powers.

Our foundational documents specifically state that the government shall not infringe on the basic human right of self-protection, which is expressed in keeping and bearing arms.

Since 1934, Congress has run roughshod over the Bill of Rights and successive generations have just blindly accepted it as if it was some kind of legal precedent, regardless of what the Constitution says.

[Mhan7]

With all due respect - I will NEVER thank a politician, for anything. Trump may have run on the ticket, and therefore had an obligation to tow the party line -- but thanking politicians is something that no thinking man EVER does. NEVER EVER.

Trump was as big a clown as Biden. It's just that he was the clown on our particular side of the issues. But I think we give waaaaaay too much credit to this imbecilic narcissist. I met him long before he became president, and there is literally not a single person in this room that would have ever seen his presidency on a republican ticket coming. I'm still floored by it. If you really think that this man - or any politician - has your back, represents your interests, etc, etc, then God help us all.

As vehemently opposed as I am to the notion of lobbying, it's really the only thing saving our bacon on the 2A issue.

The idea that I have to grovel or be obsequious, to someone that pays to play the game, as opposed to being a watchman for our liberties, is absolutely revolting. We ought to know better.

[LRRPF52]

Trump is the first President that I’m aware of who took on this job without partisan backing, without being beholden to lobbyists who steer money to both parties.

He also recognized the long game threat that the UN is to the US, and has done everything to pull the US out of globalist pacts that surrender the sovereignty of the US to a vile body of corrupt despots and internationalists who see the US as a cash cow to finance their own interests, while keeping the US pubic in the dark about that.

Trump even built Trump Towers to literally tower over the UN building as a symbol of beating the UN. Every other President has gone along with the UN agenda incrementally so that our fundamental rights as human beings have slowly been eroded away under an international agreement scheme.

UN building on left, Trump Tower on right:


It isn’t about partisanship with Trump, but the long-term survival of the Nation. The parties betray the people as a rule, once each candidate surrenders whatever values they might have had before being blessed-off on to have a chance in an election. Once in office, regardless of party, the ones who stay in Congress for decades cash-in on the insider trading scheme of having access to closed-door meetings that award the chrony capitalist futures of multibillion dollar companies.

How Senators avoid Insider Trading Laws

Trump didn’t need any of that since he actually worked for a living building things and employing tens of thousands of people, with all the ups and downs that an entrepreneur has to face.

So we should be thankful that someone had the intestinal fortitude and capacity to finally bypass the corrupt scheme to the WH run by the corporations and lobbyists. That’s the true threat he represents to them: lack of control over who gets into primaries and wins. With a Trump movement, the basic framework of the corrupt nature of DC is under threat from maintaining control. Name me one other candidate that had the guts or the ability to take on the beast in DC? Yeb? Rubio? You used the word “clown” earlier. That’s who I think of when you say “clown”.

Nobody has broken that mold since the partisan divide was used to co-opt US politics soon after the founding. Washington warned us about it, and it still happened almost immediately.

Had Trump not run in 2015-2016, Hillary would have been anointed and awarded a rigged election by Google, Facebook, the DNC, Chinese Communists, and Ivy League Intel Community. Imagine all the Supreme Court appointments that would have ensued under a Hillary WH, which brings us full circle back to the OP’s article.

Try going to SCOTUS with a fundamental rights issue like...protecting your own life, with a packed court full of the likes of Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsburg, Roberts, and whoever Hillary would have appointed instead of us getting Gorsich, Kavanaugh and Barrett. You’d have a SCOTUS full of radical activist judges hell bent on assisting Hillary and the socialists with fundamentally ruining and erasing any semblance of the 2A.

Imagine this x 2 for 6 radical activist judges who think that judges legislate from the bench for "social justice”:

[Mhan7]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to recuse myself from engaging this. There is simply no competing with that level of fanboy-ism. And to be perfectly honest... I'm not in the business of trying to change people's minds.

If you want to believe that a businessman, with a vested interest in holding high office, is your standard-bearer, and a hero to the people, then I accept this.

Carry on...

[Double Naught Spy]

Frankly, I think that if a person has done their time and has shown themselves to be a benefit to society then their rights should be restored.

Well, that isn't vague and would never be subjectively interpreted. "Benefit to society?" In what manner? For how long? I know plenty of folks who aren't felons, but at the same time would be folks that I certainly would not consider to be a benefit to society. I have known some people who were benefiting society at the same time as being felons. Hmmmm.

Either you go with the folks have done their time and get their rights restored or they don't. "Benefit to society" is way too subjective.

[Mhan7]

Well, that isn't vague and would never be subjectively interpreted. "Benefit to society?" In what manner? For how long? I know plenty of folks who aren't felons, but at the same time would be folks that I certainly would not consider to be a benefit to society. I have known some people who were benefiting society at the same time as being felons. Hmmmm.

Either you go with the folks have done their time and get their rights restored or they don't. "Benefit to society" is way too subjective.

I don't think that rational arguments are going to go very far in this area of the forum. This is the "fervor" section.

[montana]

Trump is the first President that I’m aware of who took on this job without partisan backing, without being beholden to lobbyists who steer money to both parties.

He also recognized the long game threat that the UN is to the US, and has done everything to pull the US out of globalist pacts that surrender the sovereignty of the US to a vile body of corrupt despots and internationalists who see the US as a cash cow to finance their own interests, while keeping the US pubic in the dark about that.

Trump even built Trump Towers to literally tower over the UN building as a symbol of beating the UN. Every other President has gone along with the UN agenda incrementally so that our fundamental rights as human beings have slowly been eroded away under an international agreement scheme.

UN building on left, Trump Tower on right:


It isn’t about partisanship with Trump, but the long-term survival of the Nation. The parties betray the people as a rule, once each candidate surrenders whatever values they might have had before being blessed-off on to have a chance in an election. Once in office, regardless of party, the ones who stay in Congress for decades cash-in on the insider trading scheme of having access to closed-door meetings that award the chrony capitalist futures of multibillion dollar companies.

How Senators avoid Insider Trading Laws

Trump didn’t need any of that since he actually worked for a living building things and employing tens of thousands of people, with all the ups and downs that an entrepreneur has to face.

So we should be thankful that someone had the intestinal fortitude and capacity to finally bypass the corrupt scheme to the WH run by the corporations and lobbyists. That’s the true threat he represents to them: lack of control over who gets into primaries and wins. With a Trump movement, the basic framework of the corrupt nature of DC is under threat from maintaining control. Name me one other candidate that had the guts or the ability to take on the beast in DC? Yeb? Rubio? You used the word “clown” earlier. That’s who I think of when you say “clown”.

Nobody has broken that mold since the partisan divide was used to co-opt US politics soon after the founding. Washington warned us about it, and it still happened almost immediately.

Had Trump not run in 2015-2016, Hillary would have been anointed and awarded a rigged election by Google, Facebook, the DNC, Chinese Communists, and Ivy League Intel Community. Imagine all the Supreme Court appointments that would have ensued under a Hillary WH, which brings us full circle back to the OP’s article.

Try going to SCOTUS with a fundamental rights issue like...protecting your own life, with a packed court full of the likes of Sotomayor, Kegan, Ginsburg, Roberts, and whoever Hillary would have appointed instead of us getting Gorsich, Kavanaugh and Barrett. You’d have a SCOTUS full of radical activist judges hell bent on assisting Hillary and the socialists with fundamentally ruining and erasing any semblance of the 2A.

Imagine this x 2 for 6 radical activist judges who think that judges legislate from the bench for "social justice”:

Excellent synopsis once again. Was President Trump perfect?? No. Considering the alternative, "there was no other choice" if one believes in self determination and the original intent of the Constitution. He has certainly shaken up the the deep state with their desperate 24-7 lies, false accusations, false reason to impeach, etc. There is a growing communist movement in this nation, that is doing everything possible to destroy the very fabric of what this nation was founded on. You will understand the corporate motive for supporting this movement.. If people think capitalism is bad or the corporate world supports the Constitution, then please watch the historian TIK..You will understand where the concept of the individual vs the collective came from and the purpose of attacking Christianity..I will post this video one last time. There is a reason the corporate world wants socialism and the destruction of individual rights and the free market.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAqr4lLA_Y

[Mhan7]

You will understand where the concept of the individual vs the collective came from and the purpose of attacking Christianity..I will post this video one last time. There is a reason the corporate world wants socialism and the destruction of individual rights and the free market.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAqr4lLA_Y

I hate Christianity, but I have no desire to destroy Capitalism, or the Collective. It's a convenient story, because it catches a whole lot of people, and helps package the "culture war" narrative. For the record, there is a culture war. But I don't think that it's very well understood by the vocal majority of the proponents of all things that are purportedly under attack. For my part, I can't stand the Puritan notions that we've been burdened with for 300 years. I love sex and have no hang ups about nudity. Unashamed. I don't have any problem with people who practice Christianity - so long as they don't get carried away on that whole notion of the US being a "Chrsitian Nation." It's not, and never was. It was a prevailing cultural trait, to be sure. But it was not built into our government. Just like it was never coded into our Constitution that blacks or women could not vote. These are inferences that are drawn by interested parties, and have had to be corrected over time, and with much suffering.

The second part is just ridiculous. Rushing to the defense of the Capitalist in Chief, while suggesting that corporate America is fomenting a fascist mutiny. It just doesn't make sense. Modern capitalism works best, when the "shareholder" and their venture Capitalist slaves, can use up resources and labor, leverage the collective power of the consumer/worker, and spit them out, when a cheaper, and more able bodied work force becomes available. Capitalism is absolutely fantastic, when tempered with responsible benevolence, and absolutely terrible when oppressive, when it's overtaken by those who place short term gain, over long term sustainability, and the health of a nation. If you haven't known what it's like to lose a pension, be laid off after double digit years of service, or see an employee owned company divested and IPO'ed by an "investment group", then please don't bother to respond. I will assure at that point, that you have no clue what you're talking about.

You have really got to start getting out more. These theories work well from a rural-centric world view. But when you actually understand how the world works from both points of view, it really sounds dumb. I grew up on a farm, and worked my way through higher education. I have, in all probability, seen more of the world than about 90% of the non-military members who participate in this forum. I did it all on my own dime. These things that you are saying right now, remind me of the people that I left behind, who have never been more than about 200 miles from where they were born.

[montana]

I hate Christianity, but I have no desire to destroy Capitalism, or the Collective. It's a convenient story, because it catches a whole lot of people, and helps package the "culture war" narrative. For the record, there is a culture war. But I don't think that it's very well understood by the vocal majority of the proponents of all things that are purportedly under attack. For my part, I can't stand the Puritan notions that we've been burdened with for 300 years. I love sex and have no hang ups about nudity. Unashamed. I don't have any problem with people who practice Christianity - so long as they don't get carried away on that whole notion of the US being a "Chrsitian Nation." It's not, and never was. It was a prevailing cultural trait, to be sure. But it was not built into our government. Just like it was never coded into our Constitution that blacks or women could not vote. These are inferences that are drawn by interested parties, and have had to be corrected over time, and with much suffering.

The second part is just ridiculous. Rushing to the defense of the Capitalist in Chief, while suggesting that corporate America is fomenting a fascist mutiny. It just doesn't make sense. Modern capitalism works best, when the "shareholder" and their venture Capitalist slaves, can use up resources and labor, leverage the collective power of the consumer/worker, and spit them out, when a cheaper, and more able bodied work force becomes available. Capitalism is absolutely fantastic, when tempered with responsible benevolence, and absolutely terrible when oppressive, when it's overtaken by those who place short term gain, over long term sustainability, and the health of a nation. If you haven't known what it's like to lose a pension, be laid off after double digit years of service, or see an employee owned company divested and IPO'ed by an "investment group", then please don't bother to respond. I will assure at that point, that you have no clue what you're talking about.

You have really got to start getting out more. These theories work well from a rural-centric world view. But when you actually understand how the world works from both points of view, it really sounds dumb. I grew up on a farm, and worked my way through higher education. I have, in all probability, seen more of the world than about 90% of the non-military members who participate in this forum. I did it all on my own dime. These things that you are saying right now, remind me of the people that I left behind, who have never been more than about 200 miles from where they were born.

For you to assume you know what I have done and experienced in my life, "to justify your opinion" is quite telling. Good day sir!

[Mhan7]

For you to assume you know what I have done and experienced in my life, "to justify your opinion" is quite telling. Good day sir!

I only know the cards you show, and how it correlates to those whom I know, who are holding the same cards.

Good day to you, as well...

[TexHill]

Well, that isn't vague and would never be subjectively interpreted. "Benefit to society?" In what manner? For how long? I know plenty of folks who aren't felons, but at the same time would be folks that I certainly would not consider to be a benefit to society. I have known some people who were benefiting society at the same time as being felons. Hmmmm.

Either you go with the folks have done their time and get their rights restored or they don't. "Benefit to society" is way too subjective.

By benefit to society I mean that: it has been 5 or more years since they completely served their time and any further obligations (probation, restitution, etc.); they are employed and not on government assistance; they are paying their child support if they owe child support.

[Mhan7]

By benefit to society I mean that: it has been 5 or more years since they completely served their time and any further obligations (probation, restitution, etc.); they are employed and not on government assistance; they are paying their child support if they owe child support.

I'd take a slightly different stance. I don't think that it's unreasonable for someone who has been incarcerated to be temporarily on government assistance. That alone, should not be a qualification, for restoration of rights. But I certainly agree that anyone who has served out their sentence, and not been convicted of some crime like treason, should absolutely be eligible for restoration of rights.

The best tenant I ever had in one of my properties, ended up becoming a very good friend of mine. He got mixed up in some gang stuff growing up, and did time for firearms, drugs, and attempted murder. He grew up in prison. Realized he never wanted to go back. Got some influence that was absent in his life, before he went in. Today, he's a business owner, and one of the most responsible people I know. When he rented from me, he paid me 3 months at a time. He took care of my place, where others would have trashed it.

If I had listened to my father or grandfather, back on the farm, we would have relegated him to obscurity. Written him off as unredeemable.

What so many people FAIL to realize, is that we are creating a legion of ideologically opposed political denizens, by way of our refusal to evaluate how we treat others. It was decided long ago, that as a collective, we believe that government has a responsibility to protect and care for its citizens. We all love to spout off about our rights - but very few of us are as adamant about our responsibilities. Those responsibilities aren't just to Jesus and the NRA. You want something better for your country? Educate yourself. Make sure that others get the same chance. Because if you don't, your political opponents will.

It's pretty much the same line of thinking as being a parent. Any man with even 2 brain cells, knows that if he doesn't pay attention to his daughter, some other guy will. It's literally exactly the same thing. For freedom and culture, and community to thrive, one must invest themselves in it. Otherwise, as per usual, welcome to the shit show.

[grayfox]

I only know the cards you show, and how it correlates to those whom I know, who are holding the same cards.

Good day to you, as well...

methinks we’ve uncovered a troll.

[Mhan7]

methinks we’ve uncovered a troll.

Hardly. Just because a person thinks for themselves, does not mean that they're a troll. It might not be what you're accustomed to, but I assure you that I'm no troll. So I'll thank you not to play those kinds of games with me.

It would be ironic to be having conversations pertaining to a free republic, in a vacuum of intellectual dishonesty, and constrained thought. I certainly hope that's not the case here.