The Official Former President Trump thread

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Arabdownunder said:

All well and good if you ignore the exception for followers of minority religions in these countries which is included in the EA. Given they are all Muslim majority countries its effectively a ban only on Muslims from these countries which is why it is likely to be found unconstitutional.

And that Trump said that Christians would be given preferential consideration.

[Deplorable]

The US and Mexico both deny this, but the AP says this is a Trump quote from his conversation with the Mexican President that was supposed to patch things up.

"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there. You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

In a call with the Aussie PM he accused Australia of trying to export the next Boston bombers to the US when the PM tried to see if Trump was going to fulfill Obama's pledge to take refugees that the Aussies don't want. Trump also said that he had spoken to 4 other world leaders that day and this call was the worst. Hopefully he told the PM to let his citizens know that they don't have to spend 100% of their time in the US on the prowl for pussy.

7 hours ago, welshbairn said:

And that Trump said that Christians would be given preferential consideration.

People are noting that during the Cold War it was US immigration policy to give Jews from the Soviet Union an advantage over Christians and Muslims.

7 hours ago, Arabdownunder said:

All well and good if you ignore the exception for followers of minority religions in these countries which is included in the EA. Given they are all Muslim majority countries its effectively a ban only on Muslims from these countries which is why it is likely to be found unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the guy arguing in the NY Times against the legality of Trump's ban suggested that it might be legal if it specified Muslims. Apparently there's no explicit protections against religious discrimination in immigration anywhere in US law. To create such a prohibition would require the Supreme Court to rule broadly based on some interpretation of what people in the 1700s were writing, but obviously never intended their words to mean. Of course the American House of Lords makes a habit of just such rulings rather than following the law as written by our elected representatives.

[pandarilla]

To create such a prohibition would require the Supreme Court to rule broadly based on some interpretation of what people in the 1700s were writing, but obviously never intended their words to mean. Of course the American House of Lords makes a habit of just such rulings rather than following the law as written by our elected representatives.

What like the right to bare arms in order to form a free standing militia?

Or whatever phrase the founding fathers used.

[Deplorable]

12 hours ago, hehawhehaw said:

So now we have it. You're a Rangers man

Eh, I'm not going to be one of those Americans whose gonna try to lay claim to being a real fan of a British soccer club. I don't personally understand how you can just pick a team that's thousands of miles away and care the same as with the local teams you grew up supporting. My first sports memory is the Notre Dame Fighting Irish college football making me cry when I was 5 because they beat my local team for the national championship. ND has been my most hated team ever since. I don't know how much you know about US college football, but that's the most popular team in the country based on random Irish people all over America rooting for them. College football is generally a much, much more local sport than the pro leagues and national fanbases are pretty much non-existent outside of Notre Dame. The city whose pro sports teams I root for will never get a MLS franchise. My main problem with picking an EPL team to root for is that you have to choose between being a douchey front runner or supporting a team that will likely never win anything significant. When I read that the club who hates the Irish club in Scotland was bankrupt and going down to the bottom I figured that was a good enough combination of not jumping on a bandwagon, but there being hope that they might win something in the future. Been watching 5 or so matches a year since then if I'm at home doing nothing when they happen to play. Not really appointment television, but I like to watch soccer. Good to have a bit of a rooting interest.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Deplorable

[Deplorable]

4 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

What like the right to bare arms in order to form a free standing militia?

Or whatever phrase the founding fathers used.

The people who wrote the Constitution clearly intended there to be an armed private citizenry. There's really no other way to look at it.

[pandarilla]

The people who wrote the Constitution clearly intended there to be an armed private citizenry. There's really no other way to look at it.

Of course not.

[Deplorable]

7 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

Of course not.
 

Any particular reason for thinking that the early US leaders did not want an armed citizenry?

[pandarilla]

Any particular reason for thinking that the early US leaders did not want an armed citizenry?

The idea that they could foresee the changes in society over the past 200 odd years is farcical. A well armed militia was absolutely necessary in the early 1800s but having so many armed citizens in the 21st century just brings violence and heartbreak.

[Baxter Parp]

11 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Any particular reason for thinking that the early US leaders did not want an armed citizenry?

They couldn't see two centuries into the future.

[Deplorable]

10 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

The idea that they could foresee the changes in society over the past 200 odd years is farcical. A well armed militia was absolutely necessary in the early 1800s but having so many armed citizens in the 21st century just brings violence and heartbreak.
 

Then advocate for a change of the Constitution democratically rather than seeking to win based on a ruling from 9 unelected people. The Supreme Court ruling gives local government a very wide latitude in deciding gun laws. It struck down laws in Washington DC and Chicago that were specifically designed to make legal gun ownership nearly impossible for 99% of people.

[Baxter Parp]

5 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Then advocate for a change of the Constitution democratically rather than seeking to win based on a ruling from 9 unelected people. The Supreme Court ruling gives local government a very wide latitude in deciding gun laws. It struck down laws in Washington DC and Chicago that were specifically designed to make legal gun ownership nearly impossible for 99% of people.

Yes, the 9 unelected people should only enact things that you agree with.

[welshbairn]

34 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

Any particular reason for thinking that the early US leaders did not want an armed citizenry?

 It was the equivalent of Welsh villages being persuaded to train and provision a few archers in case of war. Guns were expensive and difficult to maintain or repair, and too inaccurate to be much use for hunting. 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

Edited February 2, 2017 by welshbairn

[Deplorable]

11 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Yes, the 9 unelected people should only enact things that you agree with.

I have a fundamental belief in democracy and the rule of law. If the law says something and you want it changed you go to the voters.

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 It was the equivalent of Welsh villages being persuaded to train and provision a few archers in case of war. Guns were expensive and difficult to maintain, and too inaccurate to be much use for hunting. 

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

Historians have pushed back against that book. I can't say what's true because I've never studied the issue.

Again, if you don't like the law seek a change. This discussion is about whether 9 unelected judges should rule against the plain meaning of the law as it was written and intended.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Deplorable said:

I have a fundamental belief in democracy and the rule of law. If the law says something and you want it changed you go to the voters.

Historians have pushed back against that book. I can't say what's true because I've never studied the issue.

Again, if you don't like the law seek a change. This discussion is about whether 9 unelected judges should rule against the plain meaning of the law as it was written and intended.

All gun owners should be forced to join a well regulated militia then.

[Deplorable]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

All gun owners should be forced to join a well regulated militia then.

In the American English of the 18th century "well regulated" meant "well armed" and the militia was defined in law male, adult civilians.

To say the same thing meant by the writers of the 2nd amendment in today's plain English you'd write something like: "A well armed citizenry, being necessary for the maintenance of freedom and protection of rights, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Edited February 2, 2017 by Deplorable

[Baxter Parp]

10 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

I have a fundamental belief in democracy and the rule of law. .

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States isn't part of the "rule of law".

11 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

 If the law says something and you want it changed you go to the voters.

As far as I'm aware the constitution has never been altered by "going to the voters" unless you count the Civil War, I suppose.  People voted with their blood then.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

In the American English of the 18th century "well regulated" meant "well armed" and the militia was defined in law male, adult civilians.

To say the same thing meant by the writers of the 2nd amendment in today's plain English you'd write something like: "A well armed citizenry, being necessary for freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

To claim the founding fathers anticipated the availability and lethal power of weaponry in the 21st Century is as insane as the Jihadis claiming all the rules for life written in the 8th century are applicable now. 

P.S. I very much doubt the Founding Fathers would approve your skewed interpretation. The text is very clear.

Quote

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.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by welshbairn

[Deplorable]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States isn't part of the "rule of law".

As far as I'm aware the constitution has never been altered by "going to the voters" unless you count the Civil War, I suppose.  People voted with their blood then.

1. Law is set by the legislature. The courts apply that law to specific cases. Courts should not interpret laws other than the intent of the people who wrote the law.

2. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. Obviously they don't come about by referendum, but it is left to the democratically elected parts of government to change the law. Alcohol prohibition was put into the Constitution by amendment and then repealed by another amendment.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, Deplorable said:

1. Law is set by the legislature. The courts apply that law to specific cases. Courts should not interpret laws other than the intent of the people who wrote the law.

1/ What is your point?

 

2 minutes ago, Deplorable said:

2. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. Obviously they don't come about by referendum, but it is left to the democratically elected parts of government to change the law. Alcohol prohibition was put into the Constitution by amendment and then repealed by another amendment.

2/ So what?

[Deplorable]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

1/ What is your point?

 

 

If you want to get rid of the right for law abiding citizens to own guns you need to change the law through the democratic branches of government. Not get unelected people to twist the plain meaning of a law that was passed democratically, even if that law was passed in the 18th century.