OT: Money from Trump..

[bitrex]

On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution. Loss of voting rights simply for being convicted of a felony seems like rather overdone. There are plenty of felonies that really aren't that bad, plus there is often leeway in making charges... the same crime can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony. I know someone who was going through a rough patch and was stopped for speeding or something like that and ended up with a drug search and they found a single pill in her car that she couldn't explain. The officer charged her with a felony drug charge and put her in jail until she saw the magistrate. Before that happened the chief stepped in and had the cop reduce the charge to a misdemeanor.

Had the felony drug charge stuck she would have lost her voting rights forever. In Texas there is a $500 threshold (or was as least) to damage during a break in to make it a felony. Breaking into a store to steal anything with a post office inside makes it a felony. There are a very large number of crimes that seem pretty minor which are felonies.

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.

I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Has the 14th amendment been cited as justification for taking away voting rights? The wording of that sentence is only addressing who is counted in the census. In particular the part you mention about those who rebel, is an exclusion from this rule of who is *not* counted. That is, of those who have lost their right to vote are not counted, except for those who have lost their right to vote because of rebellion. So while you can lose your right to vote if you rebel, you are still counted as a "person" to determine the number of representatives in Congress.

Weird.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:49:36 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 12:28 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Has the 14th amendment been cited as justification for taking away voting rights?

Yes: <https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-05.htm

It is hard to imagine that the Supreme Court can say that many of their decisions are actually based in the words of the Constitution while keeping a straight face.

The court's decisions are often justified by contorted logic and a seemingly random adherence to or deviation from precedent that is only equaled by political processes of our elected officials.

The Constitution seems to give rights to the average person, but government is run by people, and people are easily corrupted.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 12:57 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 12:28 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.  Has the 14th amendment
been cited as justification for taking away voting rights?  The
wording of that sentence is only addressing who is counted in the
census.  In particular the part you mention about those who rebel, is
an exclusion from this rule of who is *not* counted.  That is, of
those who have lost their right to vote are not counted, except for
those who have lost their right to vote because of rebellion.  So
while you can lose your right to vote if you rebel, you are still
counted as a "person" to determine the number of representatives in
Congress.

Weird.


The 14th Amendment is a very important amendment, it's somewhat
remarkable its contents were overlooked at the outset. People obsess
over the 1st Amendment but it's the 14th that is the teeth of the 1st.

Otherwise the states are mostly free to make all sorts of vague local
statues

Statutes, rather u can see vague statues at the modern art museum.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 12:28 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Has the 14th amendment been cited as justification for taking away voting rights? The wording of that sentence is only addressing who is counted in the census. In particular the part you mention about those who rebel, is an exclusion from this rule of who is *not* counted. That is, of those who have lost their right to vote are not counted, except for those who have lost their right to vote because of rebellion. So while you can lose your right to vote if you rebel, you are still counted as a "person" to determine the number of representatives in Congress.

Weird.

The 14th Amendment is a very important amendment, it's somewhat
remarkable its contents were overlooked at the outset. People obsess
over the 1st Amendment but it's the 14th that is the teeth of the 1st.

Otherwise the states are mostly free to make all sorts of vague local
statues and ordinances that uphold the letter of the 1st in principle
but stomp all over it, in practice.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 12:28 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Has the 14th amendment been cited as justification for taking away voting rights?

Yes: <https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-05.htm>

The wording of that sentence is only addressing who is counted in the
census. In particular the part you mention about those who rebel, is an
exclusion from this rule of who is *not* counted. That is, of those who
have lost their right to vote are not counted, except for those who have
lost their right to vote because of rebellion. So while you can lose
your right to vote if you rebel, you are still counted as a "person" to
determine the number of representatives in Congress.

Weird.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 1:27 AM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:49:36 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 12:28 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 11:35:27 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 10:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

Seems very, very excessive to take away voting rights for this.


I don't think the US Constitution needs to be changed; that it's
considered constitutional at all vis a vis the 14th Amendment is due to
a very broad and dumb-headed interpretation of the second clause from a
couple SC cases from

"is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any
way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion"

the clause "other crime" seems surely to mean "crime related to
rebellion." otherwise it's so broad as to be meaningless. "Other crime"
like what kinda other crime? Can a state take away your voting rights
for life on the grounds of stealing a pack of chewing gum?

"Rebellion and/or stealing a pack of chewing gum" it makes no sense.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Has the 14th amendment been cited as justification for taking away voting rights?

Yes: <https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/vote/usvot98o-05.htm

It is hard to imagine that the Supreme Court can say that many of their decisions are actually based in the words of the Constitution while keeping a straight face.

The court's decisions are often justified by contorted logic and a seemingly random adherence to or deviation from precedent that is only equaled by political processes of our elected officials.

The Constitution seems to give rights to the average person, but government is run by people, and people are easily corrupted.

Sort of like the joke about the Bible - never has a book (at the very
least) written by so many geniuses, been interpreted by so many fools

 

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.

It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.

A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd..

Any other diversions into the wilderness that you'd like to attempt?
The simple fact is that states can do as please with voting rights
for felons. We don't need to change the Constitution to change state
laws.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:32:30 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

So what? Just because the Constitution allows something doesn't mean
that the states can't then regulate it and that's where it can be
addressed, if they choose to. With all the serious, major issues
facing the country, worrying about this is near the bottom of my list.

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?

I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:09:22 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:32:30 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:11:46 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/5/19 12:16 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:29:12 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/4/19 2:51 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Trump Opens Door

That ain't workin'
That's the way to do it,
Money from Trump
and your chicks for free


Americans don't want handouts. The only question is, were it, legal how
much money Trump would have to pay each American yearly in exchange for
being voted president for life such that they thought of it as a "gift"
and not a "handout."

I estimate around $250.

Well, Trump should have his re-election secured then.  He's handed out
more than that to most Americans with his tax cut.



 "MOST"
  What about us poor that pay no tax?


According to some you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay taxes.
It's not how I feel about it. There should be no restrictions on
convicted criminals who have served their time and released back into
society. doesn't matter at all what they were convicted of even a
convicted murderer who's served their sentence and is a free citizen
again is entitled to vote in elections.

all de-facto poll taxes like that on free citizens are IMO unconstitutional.

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

So what? Just because the Constitution allows something doesn't mean
that the states can't then regulate it and that's where it can be
addressed, if they choose to. With all the serious, major issues
facing the country, worrying about this is near the bottom of my list.

Exactly. You don't care about the rights of others, only your own.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?


I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it. It's not like carrying a concealed weapon, you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous... or actually at all. Imagine if the many mass murders that are so common these days had been perpetuated with heavy weapons. Even that would not result in the "people" having the power to overthrow the government.

Perhaps it requires another amendment to the Constitution to update it, but the second amendment is really far past it's useful purpose.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[bitrex]

On 6/6/19 3:03 PM, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?


I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it. It's not like carrying a concealed weapon, you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

That the e.g. mass shooter will likely go to prison for their actions is
cold comfort to all the dead people and their families.

Lots of Americans don't have "strong feelings" on gun control, often not
until someone shoots their kid dead randomly for the fun of it one day,
at least.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 22.07.11 UTC+2 skrev tra...@optonline.net:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?


I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles.

Nonsense. The muskets used at the time were the same as the hunting
weapons of the day, the rifles that were common in the colonies or
very similar to them.




What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias..
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

If you read the discussions by the framers at the time, as the Supreme
Court has, the "militia" was all able bodied men who could serve
if needed.





but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

The only operational, functional of the above you could own period is
the machine gun or auto rifle and only those manufactured before 1986.
That is federally, most states have their own laws that prohibit them
anyway or make it so hard to legally do it, that it's effectively
impossible.

registered before 1986, which is why full auto means ~20x the price

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?


I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles.

Nonsense. The muskets used at the time were the same as the hunting
weapons of the day, the rifles that were common in the colonies or
very similar to them.




What

"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias.
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

If you read the discussions by the framers at the time, as the Supreme
Court has, the "militia" was all able bodied men who could serve
if needed.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

The only operational, functional of the above you could own period is
the machine gun or auto rifle and only those manufactured before 1986.
That is federally, most states have their own laws that prohibit them
anyway or make it so hard to legally do it, that it's effectively
impossible.

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:03:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:08:29 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 2:01 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:46:09 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 6/6/19 1:32 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:17:08 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 10:32:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

If you consider the times when the Constitution was written... England was sending convicts to places like Australia. Losing your voting rights is not so bad given the context. But I agree that it is time to change that part of the Constitution.


It's not a part of the Constitution and various states have different laws.

The Constitution allows it. Time to sew shut the button hole.


A silly interpretation of the Constitution allows, it rather. Like the
silly interpretation of:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

where "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" is considered a completely independent clause that exists in
a vacuum, independent from the intent of the first clause, like that
clause is its own "2.5th" Amendment somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd.

Yeah... you seem to have lost me. Care to spell that out a bit more? What is not clear about the 2nd amendment? Are you talking about the fact that gun ownership is regulated or that there are people who think they should be able to possess bazookas?


I think if you read the amendment as the FF intended it, and literally,
the people who think they should be able to possess bazookas are
probably correct! So long as they are a member of a "well-regulated"
citizen militia.

What "Arms" were they talking about? real Arms. Weapons of war. high
velocity rifled muskets and heavy cannon. not hunting rifles. What
"people" were they talking about? The people in well-regulated militias..
They should be able to have and keep Arms. Weapons of war. Because it's
necessary to the security of a Free State.

but even so it's very hard to privately own an operational heavy weapon
like a machine gun, automatic rifle, bazooka, or howitzer as a private
citizen in 2019. that's probably for the best, regardless of what the FF
intended at the time.

It's not that hard to own a machine or automatic weapon. You just have to do the paperwork and let the government process it.

Not hard? First, it has to be pre 1986, there are only a few hundred
thousand in existence, so if you find one for sale, it's likely $10K+
for an ancient one, not a sleek, modern Uzi.
That's the first barrier. Then most states either don't allow them
period or make it virtually impossible to license one. Those would be
all the blue states, eg NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA, IL and most other states too.



> It's not like carrying a concealed weapon,

That's right, a concealed weapon and permit is much easier to obtain
in more places. Many, eg FL, NC, TX you don't need to show any reason.
Others, like NJ, NY you do and it's all but impossible to get one.
And you can buy the gun for $400.



you don't need a justification. I don't have strong feelings either way on further gun control, so it would not bother me at all if the government had the same regulations for possession of all firearms. I do believe people who have weapons should be responsible for the events that happen as a result of owning them.

If someone steals my car and has a wreck or kills someone with it, guess what, I can be sued. Same should be true of guns.

A bazooka and heavy weapons are a different matter. The intent of the second amendment, to give the "people" the power to overthrow the government is long gone and not possible any more without endangering the entire populous..

That activity always pretty much endangered the entire population.


.. or actually at all. Imagine if the many mass murders that are so common these days had been perpetuated with heavy weapons. Even that would not result in the "people" having the power to overthrow the government.

Perhaps it requires another amendment to the Constitution to update it, but the second amendment is really far past it's useful purpose.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209