Need to redo this as the moderated checkbox had become unchecked.. So take 2

-------------------------------------------------------

Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.


IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.

I checked the damn box.. I think it refreshed though and I assumed it was still checked. Well now. I'll have to think about that. Thanks for pointing that out.

This has nothing to do with politics/society. i.e. wrong section.

However, nothing is black and white. You can have both if a project is setup to achieve that. Decentralized projects can have plenty of progress. But they tend to move slower as there are competing opinions and ideas and they have to reach a consensus of the majority. They tend to focus on building a solid base with certain ideals from which they will make money as opposed to money being the first priority. A project run by a group is answerable only to themselves and they tend to end up corrupt. More often than not they are setup to make themselves rich by using all those they convince to be part of it.

This is no different than a government. Do  you want to live under a dictatorship or a free society. It's the same with a project. Do you want to have a "real say" or just be a pawn for them. The answer to that comes down to your goals. If all you care about is making money then go right ahead and get involved with stuff you have zero say in.

The vast majority of people on here only care about money which is why it has become a cesspool of scams and get rich quick schemes. So everyone that complains about those things should take a good look in the mirror since you're all the ones that have brought it about.

Right. Except none of that addresses my issue with any real weight or a convincing argument. It's perfectly understandable that citizens have the right to arm for self defense. The issue is when it comes to the militia. It was intended and written that the right was for arming for state militias. But they don't exist any more. More importantly, the states have allowed the federal government to have a standing army which is what the entire concern was at the time. Having failed to protect the country from that, the states have basically said there is no need for their state militias and thus there is no need for people to arm for that. That is my issue. I have yet to see any solid argument that resolves that for me and without that, then I can't see owning things like assault rifles as still being an actionable right. If the states reformed militias then yes, by all means arm but in the absence of that, no. Besides which, history has shown time and again that poorly armed groups are capable of "defeating" well armed groups over time.

I don't see how an interview done while he was still working as part of the administration has any bearing given they all spin things in the best possible light. He also does not directly reference Trump in terms of corruption. Corruption is simply mentioned as a sub part of the free market priority which is one of four mentioned.

The corruption in the impeachment doesn't even have anything to do with the Ukraine and that particular priority. It's about US election corruption and the potential corruption of a couple of the US citizens that just happens to have involved some aspect of the Ukraine. In other words, it's just a red hearing with zero relation to the issue at hand and is intended for those that are already in the camp of supporting Trump.

Yes this is self moderated. Keep on topic and don't get into any personal attacks.

This is not about gun control as any laws would have to adhere to the Second Amendment so keep it to the amendment.


IMO all the arguments about gun control and the like are simply pointless until the meaning of the second amendment is clearly defined. Frankly, I'd like to see some blatantly bad laws passed that could be used to take it to the supreme court in order to get them to finally rule on it completely once and for all. Until that happens, both sides get to use this issue to divide the voters when it shouldn't be the case.

One of the initial problems with this amendment is how you interpret the main portion of the sentence. For example, is it:

A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of a well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed.

I believe that most people, including myself, believe that the first one is the correct interpretation although I'm sure there are some that will argue for the second as I can't see how one could want "no guns" unless they did.

For myself, I support the rights of people to own arms for defense and I would never support any laws or people regardless of party that would try and do away with that. I'm an independent and while I vote left, I have voted the other way a couple times when I felt the issues were important enough so would have no problem doing so over this. I don't believe in the party system and so don't follow lock step with any one side. Also, regulation is a completely different issue than rights.

The supreme court has only heard a couple cases related to the second amendment and that's what they have basically upheld. They seem to punt on the rest of it though. They have also stipulated that not all weapons are intended for self defense. For example, they mentioned that sawed off shotguns are not and so the people do not have the right to own/use them.

Now, although it's not covered, I would think that hunting weapons could be considered a weapon of self defense as that could be the only weapon a hunter owns. I would think that any attempt to exclude hunting weapons that people use to feed themselves would tend to invoke other parts of the constitution so I don't see the point in discussing them unless you're of the opinion there should be no guns.

So here's where we get into what I view as the primary outstanding issue and where I have a problem. Given sawed off shotguns are not considered a weapon of defense, I doubt an assault weapon would be either. So we're left with the militia portion in order to justify them. There are no militias any more, not as they once were as part of the states themselves. So how can it be argued that individuals that are not part of a militia, have the right to own them? I've looked into the history of the militias and am not convinced it's valid any more.

There was a report or something written years ago that argued for gun ownership related to militias. It was written by Republicans and had a Democratic rebuttal. I didn't save it and have failed to find it again so if someone does please post it. I felt the the Republicans made a very strong argument for their case and the Democratic one was woefully inadequate. But I was still not convinced.

So, what's your take on the second amendment? Is the militia part still valid today and thus things like assault weapons are a right? People argue that they need them to overthrow the government if need be. But the second amendment stipulates that the right is in terms of the states themselves. So how can that argument hold up? Make your case.

I can't agree with that. The house is answerable to the people. The people are the check on them. That's how the system was setup and how it's meant to be. So if they go rogue and impeach a president when they shouldn't, it's the peoples responsibility to make them pay for it. It's how it should be given they are the people representatives. Laws written by them to impeach someone just makes it far more messy and drags things out when it shouldn't be. If someone is abusing their power, they need to be removed "quickly" IMO.

The Clinton impeachment took too long and this one was too short. The courts should have as their mandate that anything to do with impeachment proceedings be given the top priority and fast tracked in order to not let things drag out forever. This stuff if far too important to let drag out. Initially the people felt Clinton should be impeached (which IMO he should have been since he broke the law). As it dragged out things changed. In this case the public wasn't given an adequate chance to really get a clear picture IMO so that they could make their will known. Note that I'm talking about impeachment itself, not the trial. The trial itself should just naturally happen relatively quickly based on the amount of evidence and witnesses required to do their job responsibly.

Before one can even address your question, you're going to need to clearly define what you're talking about. What most people think of as "democracies" are representative democracies. Where the people vote for a representative and not for policies etc directly. In addition, the issues you raise have nothing to do with the system but the lack of laws, regulations and the like that would prevent/minimize those problems.

I must admit that the chinese system is interesting. What they can accomplish in short amounts of time is impressive and is certainly the reason they will most likely become the dominant power one day if the US and them don't go to war at some point which is far more likely (and historical). But the problem with those systems is that they are able to abuse the people in order to achieve their goals. There can be a working balance but no current system seems to work well in achieving it (except in times of major upheaval when everyone rallies around a common goal). Besides, I think it can easily be argued that the flaws you've outlined exist there as well.

Bottom line, all the current systems have flaws and no one has the will to fix them. And that especially includes the people themselves in the "democracies" where they do actually have some power to force the changes needed.

He's been going on about this for years now and I just don't get it. Every time I think he might have a point I go and look into it and I'm just left scratching my head. I would love to know what "research" he's done since then because I just don't see it in what he communicates. So much of what the founders said and what their clear intent was, not to mention the meaning of words back then seems to just clearly refute any argument he can come up with. It's like he has some ideological agenda he's trying to promote but I just don't see it.


From day one the only defense I felt that they could potentially make stick was that he really was concerned about corruption. But as each day passed and more and more evidence came out that pointed to it not being the case, along with their own bungling of the messaging IMO, they just don't seem to have anything solid they can work with and are now left with confuse and muddle.

I almost feel sorry for Trump. There was one press conference or recording or something about him saying he did nothing wrong and the tone of his voice made me think he really believes it. His entire life has been spent doing those sorts of things and so he sees it as normal and just the way it's done that he doesn't understand it's not right for the office he holds. It will be interesting to see who all turns on him once he's out off office.

Except the system was original designed such that the President is not the representative of the people but it's been bastardized over the years. The congress is actually the representative of the people which is why they have the power to impeach. Even the Senate as it stands today is not how it was intended to be. Anyone who truly believes in the constitution and looks at how it used to be and how things have changed ever so slowly decade by decade should be concerned that both houses are slowly being subjugated by the expanding powers of the presidency. The country is ever so slowly marching towards having a "king".

"As conceived by the framers of the Constitution, the House was to represent the popular will, and its members were to be directly elected by the people."

The president was intended to be voted in by electors, not the public. He was to basically be the states representative. As someone who has come to see the constitution as the founders designed it as far superior and more important that anything else in keeping the country together, the state of things today greatly concerns me when it comes to the future of the country. It is slowly devolving from a country where states rights were highly important, to them becoming subjugated by the national government more and more.

So I'm sorry, but I believe impeachment should be used as it is and should in fact be used more often to keep not just the president, but members of both houses (and judges although that doesn't seem to happen much) more in line. This current impeachment has made me reflect a lot more on the past and I've come to believe Clinton, despite liking him regardless of all his "faults", should have been removed from office. Even though some of us pretty much figured out that Bush went into Iraq (based on a global "plan" that had been drafted up a year or two prior to his coming into office by many of the people in his administration) under false pretenses, I can't remember if it became public knowledge while he was still in office in which case he should have been impeached as well. And I must say I've come to like the guy since he's been out of office and he did some good things as well as the bad. Obama, I didn't pay too much attention to his term as I had more important things going on in my life at the time so don't know if there were things there for him. In other words, regardless of party, if they violate the "public trust" in some way, "off with their heads" as far as I'm concerned. Maybe if enough of them (all of them) get thrown out they'll start to take it more seriously and do what's right for the people instead of themselves.


"In contrast, members of the Senate were appointed by the states until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which mandated the direct election of senators."

"James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

In this situation, I see the Senate currently protecting the president as opposed to protecting the "people". The senate has devolved into nothing more than a second House instead of what it was really meant to be. It has become a shadow of what it once was and I for one would like to see it return to what it was meant to be. A bullwork against things like the dangers of populism. The only branch that's still able to stand up and do what's right for the most part as opposed to what's popular or by being heavily influenced by the people or the other branches, is the supreme court and that's greatly concerning.

IMO that amendment was one of the worst things that could have happened and the way things operate today bear that out. It should be no wonder nothing gets done anymore and it's all about keeping their jobs and using all the voters as pawns in their games.

One thing I find interesting is that people want someone, they choose Trump this time (I view Sanders as the far left version of Trump and would not be a good thing either), to "tear down the system". Good idea, but maybe what should happen is that it return to what it used to be and what it was meant to be. I would think that anyone that really believes in the constitution would think along those lines but I rarely see that as each side only uses the constitution to support their own agenda and is willing to bastardize and twist it for everything else.

Bottom line. IMO it should be as it was. The House is who should be voted for by the people. They are the representatives and no one else should be. I'm not against the selection of Senators and the President taking into account what the people would like, but not the way it currently is or the way it's slowly moving towards being. People are basically "stupid" and far too easily manipulated to make really good choices for such important roles IMO. Of course that also means that there would need to be some good checks and balances put in place to also ensure those making the choices did it in the best interest of the people, but if you start with the premise that it should be as I think it should, then I'm sure there are things that could be implemented instead of just going the easy "sellable" route that happens. Wishful thinking I know.

This impeachment and trial at times confuses me.. When you go and look at history, in terms of the meaning of words back at the time of the founding, or who has been impeached for what over the years, or you read the federalist papers, so many of the arguments against impeachment and removal for example (there are some for as well), just don't make any sense to me and I don't see how any person could buy it. But then I remember that this is a political process and is being sold to the public for sound bites. It doesn't have to be accurate or right, just needs to sway opinion of the masses.

The hypocrisy on both sides is just staggering though. No one in there seems to have any ethics what so ever. I loved the Dems playing the Lindsey video of old. And then the WH team doing the same to Schumer. It's just a beautiful thing to watch. They all need to go. Every single one of them.

No doubt. He had illegal dealings with Cuba but the statute of limitations ran out on that one but I have no doubt there's many more such things.

The chance of him getting thrown out of office is pretty damn slim. But, it all comes down to the public and what they do which is another reason McConnell wants to rush this through. He knows the longer it drags out, the more chance more and more of the public will want him out. Watched a video last night and at the end the guy put up phone numbers of some senators for people to call and demand witnesses. Some of the people were calling their senators. The more this drags out, the more of that will happen.

What I think will be more entertaining is once Trump is out of office. I suspect the knives of the republicans will finally come out and he will also end up in court for a hole host of things and he will no longer be "protected". It's going to make for some fantastic "entertainment".

This discussion is completely pointless since it simply does not apply to Bitcoin. A "certificate of membership" is a term applied to shareholders. That simply does not apply to bitcoin and so the entire thing is invalid. You "earn" bitcoin through mining (just like you do with gold). Bitcoin has always been digital "cash" and nothing more than that. Sure people run around saying they're "investing" in it etc but that has nothing to do with how it comes to be created. Bitcoin and gold are backed by nothing. They come from "nothing" but the value people give it. Stocks come from assets of a company. Completely different things.

Now, if you want to apply the "fraud" claim etc to all the other coins out there that have done IPOs and the like, then you would probably be right as in that case the "company" is holding the "asset" and trading it for money. But when it comes to bitcoin and all the others that never did that sort of thing, the video and opinion is completely wrong.

My "perfect" coin would be a hybrid that minimizes the flaws inherent in both methods in order to produce something far more decentralized and fair for everyone. It would ensure that the inherent flaws that will always exist are so reduced and/or counteracted by the other that they are in effect rendered null and void. It's a dream but maybe one day someone will come along and chase the dream and not money like everyone does these days.

You're assuming you know what their real intent was. You don't. Besides, what does it matter. Clinton was impeached and despite the republicans wanting him out of office they didn't get their way. And yet he was still impeached. In this case everyone on both sides get to make it a big part of the next election as opposed to real issues. Yay. Maybe that was their intent.

I was liking Tulsi a bit until she started on the Regime Change war mantra and I just started to feel she was more interested in protecting those in the military than the actual country itself. The whole "talking" thing is just great in theory but history shows it doesn't work out well usually when you're dealing with people who think differently than you and who have ambitions and desires that do not include peace. I see her as folding when it comes to things like the cuban missile crissis for example.

What do you find weird about it? It's common in controversial votes for some to vote "present" as opposed to committing to either side when, for example, you agree with part of it and not others and you just can't bring yourself to vote in favor. Of course some also use it as a way to weasel out of a vote.

No, all that they had was a bunch of "opinion" which is meaningless.

Of the only court case they tried to use, the ruling was because of the scope of congresses request and the court implied if they had narrowed it, they might have had a better case and won. As a result of stepping outside the bounds of what they were permitted, the Court decided that they violated the constitution in terms of free speech and press. This impeachment is a completely different beast and nothing about that case is applicable.

Not sure I'd agree with that. IMO the only solid article would be obstruction of congress and if they all let Clinton off for his stuff, they'll definitely let Trump off for the other articles. i.e. for abuse of power strictly with the Ukrainian thing, I simply don't believe they made a strong enough case as it's far too easy to make a counter case to the masses, who don't follow everything like we've been, that the possibility exists he was in fact interested in investigating corruption but that he's "unconventional" and so didn't do it the way he should have.

However, if they add in a variety of other examples of things he's done in order to bolster the case that he has a history of abuse of power, as well as adding in some of the Mueller stuff to show more cases of obstruction of congress and justice, then they might clearly show that these events were simply a small portion of all the things he's done. They then might be able to sway more of the public to the point where maybe, just maybe more of the senate will vote for removal. But they need to only pick out absolutely clear examples of it. As it stands though, I don't think there's a chance in hell the senate will remove him and he'll then have free reign to do anything he wants. I think that in order to have "enough" stuff there would probably need to be 3-4 articles of impeachment.

I suspect he would as well. I just don't think he grasps that the sorts of games he likes to play normally, shouldn't be going on right now as he just makes things worse.