Poll of the Day > Feds stop a militia plot to overthrow the government of Michigan.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The problem with this is that they are NOT "right-wingers".

They are anarchists.

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314267058339819520

of course this is what they look like

of course

---

shadowsword87 posted...

Uh, how?

For a few different reasons but probably the most egregious of which was that she declared a state of emergency without state legislature involvement and continued not to involve them by requesting an extension to the preliminary 28 day emergency period (which is the law). It's in line with their supreme court decision.

Whether or not her decisions were legal or correct to begin with she, at the very least, needed the consent of the legislature to continue the state of emergency. She chose not to do that. One person making all the decisions is generally considered to be a bad thing.

---

TheWorstPoster posted...

The problem with this is that they are NOT "right-wingers".

They are anarchists.

https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1314267058339819520

You say that like the platform of the republican party isn't destroying the federal government.

Zeus posted...

The right to have a gun or militia doesn't grant the right to use those things to do illegal activities.

Which kind of undermines the point of the 2nd amendment. It exists to give the people the power to overthrow a tyrannical government if the need arises. Overthrowing a tyrannical government, however, is generally going to be illegal, because most governments - tyrannical or otherwise - have laws against orchestrating their downfall. People are guaranteed the right to be able to overthrow the government, but not the right to actually do it.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Governor emergency powers weren't designed to be used indefinitely.

Tell that to our moron in California.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

You say that like the platform of the republican party isn't destroying the federal government.

Yes, because they are HUGE fans of Donald Trump

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1314326901683617792

A good many members of the Republican party aren't exactly fans of Trump either, given how flagrantly he goes against their entire moral stance. They just stand to benefit from pretending otherwise.

---

adjl posted...

A good many members of the Republican party aren't exactly fans of Trump either, given how flagrantly he goes against their entire moral stance. They just stand to benefit from pretending otherwise.

They say they vehemently oppose his actions.
They'll say they're voting against him.

And then...they vote for him and support his policies anyway.
Their words mean nothing until we actually see action to back it up.

Terrorists.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

Tell that to our moron in California.

They do it anyway.
---

Lindsey Graham was shitting all over Trump prior to his win in 2016. Now he can't stop sucking Trump's dick.

---

Far-Queue posted...

Lindsey Graham was shitting all over Trump prior to his win in 2016. Now he can't stop sucking Trump's dick.

I don't know how many times I have to say it on this board. Lindsey Graham is batshit insane.
---

streamofthesky posted...

They say they vehemently oppose his actions.
They'll say they're voting against him.

And then...they vote for him and support his policies anyway.
Their words mean nothing until we actually see action to back it up.

Well it's like 2016, a ton of people said they were gonna vote for Gary Johnson in the polls, then they didn't. They just voted for Trump.

Revelation34 posted...

I don't know how many times I have to say it on this board. Lindsey Graham is batshit insane.

I dont think anyone cares that you keep saying that

---

Holy shit

https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/status/1314581815815004160

This is a sheriff trying to justify their actions by saying he thinks they could be justified if they were trying a citizens arrest.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Holy shit

https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/status/1314581815815004160

This is a sheriff trying to justify their actions by saying he thinks they could be justified if they were trying a citizens arrest.

Doesn't citizen's arrest usually involve taking a suspect criminal to the police, not to a "secure location to await the trial we'll give her"?

---

Mead posted...

I dont think anyone cares that you keep saying that

The point is that anything he says should be ignored.
---

adjl posted...

Doesn't citizen's arrest usually involve taking a suspect criminal to the police, not to a "secure location to await the trial we'll give her"?

My understanding of a citizens arrest is that you basically have to catch someone in the act of a crime in order to be able to do so, other wise you're just kidnapping.

It's, to my knowledge, impossible for politicians to receive personal criminal penalties for laws they pass, you just strike down laws as unconstitutional in court, so a citizens arrest based on a personal dislike of their policies would NEVER be valid and anyone in law enforcement should be aware of that.

adjl posted...

A good many members of the Republican party aren't exactly fans of Trump either, given how flagrantly he goes against their entire moral stance. They just stand to benefit from pretending otherwise.

You mean the Never-Trumpers who are part of the Lincoln Project?

Nobody likes, cares, or even pays attention to them.

Revelation34 posted...

The point is that anything he says should be ignored.

He can be ignored once he loses his job. Until then his hypocrisy and indifference to the safety of Americans should be highlighted and not swept under a rug where it can be allowed to continue unfettered.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Holy shit

https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/status/1314581815815004160

This is a sheriff trying to justify their actions by saying he thinks they could be justified if they were trying a citizens arrest.

wouldnt surprise me one bit of that sheriff was directly involved in the plot in some way

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well it's like 2016, a ton of people said they were gonna vote for Gary Johnson in the polls, then they didn't. They just voted for Trump.

I told my roommates at the the time i voted Gary Johnson cause the they thought trump was 'literally hitler' I didn't agree but didn't want to rock the boat, especially cause my name wasn't on the lease.

adjl posted...

Doesn't citizen's arrest usually involve taking a suspect criminal to the police, not to a "secure location to await the trial we'll give her"?

Pretty sure it's just another word for lynching at this point

---

adjl posted...

Which kind of undermines the point of the 2nd amendment. It exists to give the people the power to overthrow a tyrannical government if the need arises. Overthrowing a tyrannical government, however, is generally going to be illegal, because most governments - tyrannical or otherwise - have laws against orchestrating their downfall. People are guaranteed the right to be able to overthrow the government, but not the right to actually do it.

That's also not what the 2nd is for.

Strictly speaking, the entire point of the 2nd was to make sure Militias (again, Militias with an "M", as in State Militias) couldn't be disarmed, specifically by the federal government. That's it. It was never intended to allow anyone a Constitutional right to a gun (in fact, it was strictly ruled NOT to do that all the way up until 2008), or anything else.

Reading between the lines, of course, this was meant as a check on the federal government, should the states ever feel the need to come to blows (as states had MUCH more power back then), or with each other (before the idea of uniting the states took hold, they basically acted as mini-countries). And even though the likes of Jefferson and others were fans of revolt should the need arise, it's like the 2nd is the specific mechanic meant to address that.

Really, it's why the 2nd is easily the worst aspect of the Bill of Rights: it's original intent is defunct, and has been grossly twisted into mean something it NEVER initially intended to. And we are all worse off for it.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

That's it. It was never intended to allow anyone a Constitutional right to a gun (in fact, it was strictly ruled NOT to do that all the way up until 2008), or anything else.

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.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493411

TheWorstPoster posted...

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.

https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493411

Which is cool and all, but again, until just 12 years ago, this was ALWAYS read in the context of being in a Militia. Historical analysis of how it is written, as well as the explanation of the amendment at the time, tell us as much. Which is why it was read that way for 200+ years.

It's pretty obvious at this point that the contentious 5-4 Heller ruling of 2008 was the work of conservative activists judges, most notably Scalia, who completely jettisoned his "originalist" interpretation for a reading that is quite of opposite. It's why Heller is cited as one of the most likely rulings to be overturned eventually.

Also, you should probably re-read that Federalist paper: it very clearly talks about arms in the context of the militia, military, and armed conflicts. Furthermore, while the Federalist Papers are helpful insights into what eventually formed the Constitution, they are themselves not the Constitution.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

That's also not what the 2nd is for.

Strictly speaking, the entire point of the 2nd was to make sure Militias (again, Militias with an "M", as in State Militias) couldn't be disarmed, specifically by the federal government. That's it. It was never intended to allow anyone a Constitutional right to a gun (in fact, it was strictly ruled NOT to do that all the way up until 2008), or anything else.

Reading between the lines, of course, this was meant as a check on the federal government, should the states ever feel the need to come to blows (as states had MUCH more power back then), or with each other (before the idea of uniting the states took hold, they basically acted as mini-countries). And even though the likes of Jefferson and others were fans of revolt should the need arise, it's like the 2nd is the specific mechanic meant to address that.

Really, it's why the 2nd is easily the worst aspect of the Bill of Rights: it's original intent is defunct, and has been grossly twisted into mean something it NEVER initially intended to. And we are all worse off for it.

Well its a good thing we have you to explain it for us. Why don't you go ahead and pass that on to the Supreme Court so they know they've been fucking up for the past two hundred years.


---

Smarkil posted...

Well its a good thing we have you to explain it for us. Why don't you go ahead and pass that on to the Supreme Court so they know they've been fucking up for the past two hundred years.

You should have read the topic more: The Supreme Court has gotten it *correct* for the last 200+ years. Time after time again, they reaffirmed that the 2nd does NOT give private citizens, detached from any state militia, a Constitutional right to guns.

That's a relatively new idea in American politics, and only became a reality in 2008 Heller decision, a nakedly partisan 5-4 ruling. Thinking it's always been that way is historical revisionist thinking.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

You should have read the topic more: The Supreme Court has gotten it *correct* for the last 200+ years. Time after time again, they reaffirmed that the 2nd does NOT give private citizens, detached from any state militia, a Constitutional right to guns.

That's a relatively new idea in American politics, and only became a reality in 2008 Heller decision, a nakedly partisan 5-4 ruling. Thinking it's always been that way is historical revisionist thinking.

Souter dissented on the decision and he was a Bush Senior republican pick. It wasn't an entirely partisan decision and in fact the decision, at least as it pertains to partisanship, was weighted toward anti-gun.

I'm not going to write an entire essay here, but you're missing a number of other supreme court decisions which positively or negatively affected the right to bear arms over the years. Mcdonald v. Chicago in 2010. Heller of course. US vs Cruikshank in 1875. Presser vs. Illinois in 1886. United States vs. Miller in 1939. Thats not to mention the however many cases that have gone to federal judges or state court judges that never made it to the supreme court (and there's a lot).

Many of the older cases regarded restricted the federal government from negating the second amendment and left the decision largely up to the states with the exception of the few recent cases which have been more unilateral in their decisions to support gun ownership against the will of the state.

---