# The Big President Joe Biden Fail Compilation



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Here I will be posting all Biden fails his administration is involved with from losing at courts to the random events that he is part of .
First one
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1407815444703100928

Biden seems to think you need F15's and Nukes to take on the government
This is a fact not true as history has shown us in past revolutions

If you have Biden fails please feel free to contribute


Compilation
Biden apparently gets lost reading his notes at EU-US summit.
????????


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Biden seems to think you need F15's and Nukes to take on the government


Is he wrong?


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Is he wrong?


Please you need to have a basic education to post here  please go read on urban warfare and guerrilla tactics


----------



## SG854 (Jun 24, 2021)

Nuke the gov. That's what Republican want cuz dey hate the gov.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Please you need to have a basic education to post here  please go read on urban warfare and guerrilla tactics


Do you really think anybody is going to forcefully take down the military–industrial complex that is the United States government and its military without comparable firepower? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Do you really think anybody is going to forcefully take down the military–industrial complex that is the United States government and its military without comparable firepower? I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


US won Vietnam


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Please you need to have a basic education to post here  please go read on urban warfare and guerrilla tactics


Lmao, what a bunch of faux-macho bullshit.  The only tactic Republicans would have in an actual war against the government is shitting their pants.

Besides, when a fascist strongman rises to power and we're in our most desperate need of a revolution, they're always gung-ho in support of the government under those circumstances.  Just a bunch of LARPers.

Now mods, please delete this childish thread.  Or otherwise change the name of this subforum to "Valwinz's political tantrum corner."


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> US won Vietnam


The United States did not win against Vietnam, which I understand is your point, but Vietnam did not overthrow the US government. Biden is specifically referring to insurrectionists in the United States.

I mean this with respect, which is way more than you deserve at this point, but do you read/watch anything you reference?


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lmao, what a bunch of faux-macho bullshit.  The only tactic Republicans would have in an actual war against the government is shitting their pants.
> 
> Besides, when a fascist strongman rises to power and we're in our most desperate need of a revolution, they're always gung-ho in support of the government under those circumstances.  Just a bunch of LARPers.


Who is talking about Republicans? please read before posting stupidity here.

We talking about US citizens in the future who decided to rebel again the government  republican or Democrat 

With how many guns people here have anyone that thinks they could not take on the government is as dumb as Biden 

You don't need nukes or F15


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Lmao, what a bunch of faux-macho bullshit.  The only tactic Republicans would have in an actual war against the government is shitting their pants.
> 
> Besides, when a fascist strongman rises to power and we're in our most desperate need of a revolution, they're always gung-ho in support of the government under those circumstances.  Just a bunch of LARPers.
> 
> Now mods, please delete this childish thread.  Or otherwise change the name of this subforum to "Valwinz's political tantrum corner."


I already reported the first post per the naming guidelines in this subforum, but titling it "Valwinz's political tantrum corner" and moving it to EoF is a much better idea.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1404806897677504533
Biden does not know where he is


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Who is talking about Republicans? please read before posting stupidity here.
> 
> We talking about US citizens in the future who decided to rebel again the government  republican or Democrat
> 
> ...


By your logic, maybe we can start slashing the military budget, since all we need are the guns we already have (with 40% of them being handguns). Perhaps we finally have some common ground.



Valwinz said:


> Biden does not know where he is


There's no indication from this video that Biden doesn't know where he is or got lost reading his notes.

Biden is a gaffe-prone president. It doesn't take long to find a video demonstrating this. But this isn't one of them.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> By your logic, maybe we can start slashing the military budget, since all we need are the guns we already have (with 40% of them being handguns). Perhaps we finally have some common ground.
> 
> 
> There's no indication from this video that Biden doesn't know where he is or got lost reading his notes.
> ...


if your going to be here them please contribute or go cry somewhere else


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> if your going to be here them please contribute or go cry somewhere else


In what world am I not contributing? I'm responding to and correcting your misinformation. It's on topic.

This is going to sound snarky, but maybe it should be called Valwinz Fail Compilation.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Seriously @Valwinz, you just made a Twitter thread. One with high Republican beliefs. This in no way helps society. I vote that this thread gets taken down to prevent mass arguments (which are different from debates, and often result in threats). @Valwinz, you will have a lot of disagreement in here, and will ultimately result in a terrifying problem.

You'll get some stuff like this:

This is the stupidest thread I have ever seen. I could make a compilation of Trump fails, but there isn't even enough bandwidth in GBATemp to list them all.




Lacius said:


> In what world am I not contributing? I'm responding to and correcting your misinformation. It's on topic.
> 
> This is going to sound snarky, but maybe it should be called Valwinz Fail Compilation.


Yes. Just yes. This is the best counterargument in here. Thank you @Lacius.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 24, 2021)

Kind of what I worried about, when they closed Biden thread. Even with a conservative corner, it spreads.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

KingVamp said:


> Kind of what I worried about, when they closed Biden thread. Even with a conservative corner, it spreads.


Everything goes to crap when you bring politics into it. Especially such a controversial topic as Biden v. Trump. I vote we all grab burritos and put an end to this nonsense. Who's with me?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> Everything goes to crap when you bring politics into it. Especially such a controversial topic as Biden v. Trump. I vote we all grab burritos and put an end to this nonsense. Who's with me?


As much as I like politics and political discussions, I vote this thread is locked or moved to EoF. It wasn't very serious to begin with.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> As much as I like politics and political discussions, I vote this thread is locked or moved to EoF. It wasn't very serious to begin with.


Me too. This thread honestly contributes nothing.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> Seriously @Valwinz, you just made a Twitter thread. One with high Republican beliefs. This in no way helps society. I vote that this thread gets taken down to prevent mass arguments (which are different from debates, and often result in threats). @Valwinz, you will have a lot of disagreement in here, and will ultimately result in a terrifying problem.
> 
> You'll get some stuff like this:
> 
> ...


 go do it make one about the Republican fails they have lots


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> go do it make one about the Republican fails they have lots


I would rather not waste my time.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> We talking about US citizens in the future who decided to rebel again the government republican or Democrat


Republicans will accept anything from a Republican-controlled government, up to and including total dictatorship.  Most Democrats are too spineless to enact sweeping, meaningful changes, which means they're never on the verge of succumbing to authoritarianism.  Put simply: if we were going to revolt, we would've done it already, it requires a certain percentage of the populace to all be on the same page.



Valwinz said:


> With how many guns people here have anyone that thinks they could not take on the government is as dumb as Biden


Pop quiz: a hundred thousand people with 9mm pistols versus one fully-manned stealth bomber, who wins?  The US government has bombed and shot its own citizens any number of times throughout history, that's how confident they were that people wouldn't fight back.  And they didn't.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> go do it make one about the Republican fails they have lots


Republican fail threads already exist, such as the ones on the January 6 insurrection, Q-anon, pretty much anything the former president said/did, etc.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Pretty much anything the former president said/did, etc.


That one cuts deep into the hearts of MAGA Republicans.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

I will appreciate that you did not come here to try and derail this Topic


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Pop quiz: a hundred thousand people with 9mm pistols versus one fully-manned stealth bomber, who wins?


The unmanned stealth bomber?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> I will appreciate that you did not come here to try and derail this Topic


This isn't a topic; it's a direct attack from the birth of the topic.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> This isn't a topic; it's a direct attack from the birth of the topic.


And a weak attack at that.  There's plenty about Biden's beliefs and history, not to mention gaffes, to levy legitimate criticisms at, but "BiDEn ThInKs yOU'd NeED oVeRWheLMiNg FOrCe tO TaKe dOWn tHe US mIliTArY" isn't among those.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> And a weak attack at that.  There's plenty about Biden's beliefs and history, not to mention gaffes, to levy legitimate criticisms at, but "BiDEn ThInKs yOU'd NeED oVeRWheLMiNg FOrCe tO TaKe dOWn tHe US mIliTArY" isn't among those.


True, true. He's correct that you would need extensive force, but why would someone be like "*snort* lmfao he thinks we need to _try_!" ???


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

You need F15s and a nuke to take down Biden, but a handful of yokels and idiots taking selfies in the Capital Dome were totally about to overthrow the entire government


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> You need F15s and a nuke to take down Biden, but a handful of yokels and idiots taking selfies in the Capital Dome were totally about to overthrow the entire government


But they didn't. And they weren't close. Biden literally won fair and square several months ago.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> You need F15s and a nuke to take down Biden, but a handful of yokels and idiots taking selfies in the Capital Dome were totally about to overthrow the entire government


They didn't capture or kill a single Congressperson, even Mitt Romney who was slowest to react, so let's not overstate their accomplishments here.  Ultimately all they did was destroy a whole lot of property, smear shit on the walls, and fly the confederate flag in the Capitol building, which is exactly the type of behavior you'd expect of yokels and idiots.

And it certainly wasn't for lack of trying that they didn't kill any Congresspeople that day, as people _were_ killed and explosives _were _found planted in several places.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> They didn't capture or kill a single Congressperson, even Mitt Romney who was slowest to react, so let's not overstate their accomplishments here.  Ultimately all they did was destroy a whole lot of property, smear shit on the walls, and fly the confederate flag in the Capitol building, which is exactly the type of behavior you'd expect of yokels and idiots.
> 
> And it certainly wasn't for lack of trying that they didn't kill any Congresspeople that day, as people _were_ killed and explosives _were _found planted in several places.


They let them in and they still failed. Now image if they were doing their job or even if one congressperson was caught what the response would have been.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Joe Biden should probably stop talking about the second amendment throughout history, he's obviously not educated enough on the subject to have an opinion on it. Not only were cannons not restricted, the citizenry often owned newer, more effective weapons than the military. This is because military contracts are more concerned with reliability and value for money than being on the bleeding edge of technology. It was always significantly more important to order large quantities of easily serviceable weapons that produce repeatable results than to jump on the latest new mechanism, most of which were goofy and didn't stand the test of time. Anyone actually interested in the evolution of service rifles, or military-grade weaponry in general, should probably listen to an expert like Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons fame instead of this old codger. Joe's demonstrably wrong, and even fact-checkers won't side with him on this one.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...dens-dubious-claim-about-revolutionary-war-c/

Regarding a potential conflict between U.S. citizens and the federal government, I'm leaning towards the citizens winning outright, on the proviso that the gross majority of the citizenry actually wanted to overthrow the government. The citizens have the military outnumbered to the tune of 300 to 1, and you can only do so much with "F15's". Historical record shows that the American military might is geared specifically to combat and dismantle opposing military forces, it is not equipped to combat guerilla fighters, and has rarely (if ever) succeeded in doing so. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are still on-going - they can't even win in the dustbowl, let alone on their home turf where the military would be restricted from using their own toys. You don't "nuke" your own front lawn. Not that it matters anyway since it's not a realistic scenario.

As to whether a thread about Joe Biden's various funny gaffes should or should not be allowed, I personally see no issue with it - if the man makes a fool of himself on national television and someone wishes to compile all those statements into one stand-up routine in which everyone except Joe Biden is laughing, God speed. With that being said, we'll wait and see what other moderators have to say on the matter, since such a thread is liable to generate flame wars and arguments, which we generally like to avoid.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> As to whether a thread about Joe Biden's various funny gaffes should or should not be allowed, I personally see no issue with it - if the man makes a fool of himself on national television and someone wishes to compile all those statements into one stand-up routine in which everyone except Joe Biden is laughing, God speed. With that being said, we'll wait and see what other moderators have to say on the matter, since such a thread is liable to generate flame wars and arguments, which we generally like to avoid.


God forbid this section host any actual _discussion _or _news_, nah let's just cater to the lowest common denominator and let Trump trolls post memes in multiple "own the libs" megathreads because that's all they're comfortable with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> God forbid this section host any actual _discussion _or _news_, nah let's just cater to the lowest common denominator and let Trump trolls post memes in multiple "own the libs" megathreads because that's all they're comfortable with.


Pretty sure that's what the "libs" have been doing for the last 4 years, I don't see why it shouldn't work both ways. All work and no play makes Xzi a dull boy - a little bit of levity is welcome in these dark times as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Pretty sure that's what the "libs" have been doing for the last 4 years, I don't see why it shouldn't work both ways. All work and no play makes Xzi a dull boy - a little bit of levity is welcome in these dark times as far as I'm concerned.


Yeah that's a bullshit justification, link me to the "Big President Trump Fail Compilation."

And "dark times" my ass, if you aren't out enjoying this beautiful weather each day then that's on you brother.  Lots of smiles on lots of faces.  Can't wait for concerts to start coming back.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Joe Biden should probably stop talking about the second amendment throughout history, he's obviously not educated enough on the subject to have an opinion on it. Not only were cannons not restricted, the citizenry often owned newer, more effective weapons than the military. This is because military contracts are more concerned with reliability and value for money than being on the bleeding edge of technology. It was always significantly more important to order large quantities of easily serviceable weapons that produce repeatable results than to jump on the latest new mechanism, most of which were goofy and didn't stand the test of time. Anyone actually interested in the evolution of service rifles, or military-grade weaponry in general, should probably listen to an expert like Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons fame instead of this old codger. Joe's demonstrably wrong, and even fact-checkers won't side with him on this one.
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/factchec...dens-dubious-claim-about-revolutionary-war-c/
> 
> ...


Regardless of whether or not this thread should be locked, the title of this thread breaks the titling guidelines for this section. If it can't be retitled without completely changing the point of the thread, it should be moved to EoF.



x65943 said:


> The politics and world news section was made for fair discussion.
> 
> While one individual user creates a thread - many users ultimately contribute to the discussion therein. In light of this,
> please try to keep titles neutral and fact based. It's okay to state your opinions how you see fit in the body proper of your
> ...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of whether or not this thread should be locked, the title of this thread breaks the titling guidelines for this section. If it can't be retitled without completely changing the point of the thread, it should be moved to EoF.


That's a separate issue that's already being discussed, the more important question we're debating as staff is whether the thread should exist at all given the fact that it's guaranteed to cause problems and flaming. One thing at a time.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a separate issue that's already being discussed, the more important question we're debating as staff is whether the thread should exist at all given the fact that it's guaranteed to cause problems and flaming. One thing at a time.



Not sure what the issue here  is nobody on this site is been called out here if Lacius and others don't like they can just ignore it
There won't be any flaming  nobody is making stuff up this are videos and stuff that are actually happening

This is a simple topic to archive and discusses some of Biden's so call fails and mental issues

From my end there wont be any flaming


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a separate issue that's already being discussed, the more important question we're debating as staff is whether the thread should exist at all given the fact that it's guaranteed to cause problems and flaming. One thing at a time.


It seems inconsistent to me that the "Joe Biden is president" thread is hypothetically being replaced with something much more inflammatory.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Not sure what the issue here  is nobody on this site is been called out here if Lacius and others don't like they can just ignore it
> There won't be any flaming  nobody is making stuff up this are videos and stuff that are actually happening
> 
> This is a simple topic to archive and discusses some of Biden's so call fails and mental issues


See, that's the issue. You say he's mentally ill - can you provide a legitimate source for that? As @Lacius mentioned, the section operates on slightly different rules, and while I don't have any issue with compiling similar stories into one thread, it has proved to cause problems in the past, hence the new policy of neutral titles backed by a specific publication. Perhaps it would be better if your criticism of Biden was focused on specific stories as they're reported by the press. I provided a fact check for the statement in your clip, so it's not a difficult task - that's a reliable source.



Lacius said:


> It seems inconsistent to me that the "Joe Biden is president" thread is hypothetically being replaced with something much more inflammatory.


I believe that particular thread simply reached its end of life and became the go-to thread to post unrelated news in general, and to fight. It was *originally* about the inauguration, but it ceased to be that way in short order - that's no good.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> See, that's the issue. You say he's mentally ill - can you provide a legitimate source for that? As @Lacius mentioned, the section operates on slightly different rules, and while I don't have any issue with compiling similar stories into one thread, it has proved to cause problems in the past, hence the new policy of neutral titles backed by a specific publication. Perhaps it would be better if your criticism of Biden was focused on specific stories as they're reported by the press. I provided a fact check for the statement in your clip, so it's not a difficult task - that's a reliable source.


Im not a doctor but as some people has pointed out there seems to be something wrong with him from sometimes no knowing where he is to talking nonsense.

If the issue is mental issues them that no issue it will only about fails and that side here wont be mention by me

I edited the op post for a more neutral view


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> Im not a doctor but as some people has pointed out there seems to be something wrong with him from sometimes no knowing where he is to talking nonsense.
> 
> If the issue is mental issues them that no issue it will only about fails and that side here wont be mention by me


It's out of my hands regardless - I said my piece in the discussion and will allow the rest of the team to voice their opinion, and we'll go with what the majority decides to do. Behind the scenes GBAtemp is surprisingly democratic in nature. We tend to reach a mutually satisfying consensus.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

I would like to say something important to all of you Americans. Something which is unmistakably correct in its nature.

For those of you worried about guns being taken from you, you have the right to keep arms, and to bear them in defense of the country. The country being defined as a people. This means you may not bear any arms against your fellow people. No shooting the gays.

The definition of arms is weapons and ammunition; armaments. This includes swords, mind you.

The amendment only says Arms. Congress can specify what arms you are allowed to bear. We already have regulations on cannons, missiles, nuclear weaponry, and certain military guns, which means congress has been using the power given to them to restrict specific arms to keep this country safe. *Congress can take all of your weaponry away from you, leaving this country a swordsman only place. They would not be infringing your right to "keep and bear arms" because you will still be keeping some arms.
*
Somebody dispute this.

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


Valwinz said:


> Im not a doctor but as some people has pointed out there seems to be something wrong with him from sometimes no knowing where he is to talking nonsense.
> 
> If the issue is mental issues them that no issue it will only about fails and that side here wont be mention by me
> 
> I edited the op post for a more neutral view



Biden (even if he does have a mental issue) has brought up more legitimate points, bills, and views than Trump did in his presidency. I don't know if having Biden is the feeling of eating a three star meal after eating turpentine and wet garbage. It very well could be. It doesn't matter, because he's improved a ton of things in this country in the last few months. I'm fully vaccinated because of him.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I would like to say something important to all of you Americans. Something which is unmistakably correct in its nature.
> 
> For those of you worried about guns being taken from you, you have the right to keep arms, and to bear them in defense of the country. The country being defined as a people. This means you may not bear any arms against your fellow people. No shooting the gays.
> 
> ...


Thats crazy talk.. as per the NRA Everything up to Nukes is my GOD GIVEN RIGHT.


----------



## Ratatattat (Jun 24, 2021)

True Americans change their government via votes and not guns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I would like to say something important to all of you Americans. Something which is unmistakably correct in its nature.
> 
> For those of you worried about guns being taken from you, you have the right to keep arms, and to bear them in defense of the country. The country being defined as a people. This means you may not bear any arms against your fellow people. No shooting the gays.
> 
> ...


This is not how the law works. Legal precedent is set by both the legislature and the branches that function as controls on said legislature, for instance the judiciary, in the form of the Supreme Court. DC v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago and other such cases reaffirm the right of the people to bear *firearms* specifically, for the purposes including but not limited to self-defense and protection of property. Moreover, in the language of the second amendment, this right exists explicitly to enable the population to form militias, outlining that purpose as a fundamental right that is necessary for the safety and security of any free stare in the union. It was understood as and written explicitly with the intent of allowing the citizens to own *the same arms* as the military does. Citizens get to enjoy their right to bear arms and, should they choose to, can firm well-regulated militias for the purposes of protecting their home state. There's nothing to dispute there, unless you want to argue with the founders and centuries of legal precedent.

That of course doesn't mean you get to "shoot gays" - not sure where you got that from. Murder is illegal.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This is not how the law works. Legal precedent is set by both the legislature and the branches that function as controls on said legislature, for instance the judiciary, in the form of the Supreme Court. DC v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago and other such cases reaffirm the right of the people to bear *firearms* specifically, for the purposes including but not limited to self-defense and protection of property. Moreover, in the language of the second amendment, this right exists explicitly to enable the population to form militias, outlining that purpose as a fundamental right that is necessary for the safety and security of any free stare in the union. It was understood as and written explicitly with the intent of allowing the citizens to own *the same arms* as the military does. Citizens get to enjoy their right to bear arms and, should they choose to, can firm well-regulated militias for the purposes of protecting their home state. There's nothing to dispute there, unless you want to argue with the founders and centuries of legal precedent.
> 
> That of course doesn't mean you get to "shoot gays" - not sure where you got that from. Murder is illegal.


The second amendment was about the right of the states of have part-time conscripted armies to, hypothetically, protect against federal overreach. It wasn't about an individual's right to gun-ownership, particularly when private gun-ownership for things like self-defense were extremely impractical at the time. Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Washington never used the term "bear arms" in any of their writings to ever refer to anything other than a military.

This is how it was understood all the way until the 1970s, when a more extreme faction of the NRA took power and did everything they could seed judiciaries with their people, change public opinion, and then change everything in 2008 with the aforementioned Supreme Court case _DC v. Heller_. This was all legal, of course, but it doesn't make it morally right or even constitutionally accurate.

Scalia's entire argument seemed to be predicated on the fact that a state's militia consisted of some "who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty," which is a pretty silly argument. The second amendment was about the right of the state to have the militia, not the right of individuals to have guns to bring to a militia. It's not even how most militias ran themselves.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That of course doesn't mean you get to "shoot gays" - not sure where you got that from. Murder is illegal.


I get that from republican riots.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I get that from republican riots.


i get that from the Anti Semite  anti asian democrat BLM riots


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I get that from republican riots.


I don't think anybody on this site is arguing that it's permissible, morally or legally, to "shoot gays."  Of course, violence against LGBT people is still a problem in the United States, and there are specific locations and situations where LGBT people are in real danger and cannot feel safe.



Valwinz said:


> i get that from the Anti Semite  anti asian democrat BLM riots


There's nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Asian about BLM.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> US won Vietnam


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOOOOOOOO BOY WHAT


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Seliph said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOOOOOOOO BOY WHAT


We very much lost lmao


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 24, 2021)

Oh man can you imagine putting together a Trump fails compilation? There aren't enough hours in the day lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The second amendment was about the right of the states of have part-time conscripted armies to, hypothetically, protect against federal overreach. It wasn't about an individual's right to gun-ownership, particularly when private gun-ownership for things like self-defense were extremely impractical at the time. Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Washington never used the term "bear arms" in any of their writings to ever refer to anything other than a military.
> 
> This is how it was understood all the way until the 1970s, when a more extreme faction of the NRA took power and did everything they could seed judiciaries with their people, change public opinion, and then change everything in 2008 with the aforementioned Supreme Court case _DC v. Heller_. This was all legal, of course, but it doesn't make it morally right or even constitutionally accurate.
> 
> Scalia's entire argument seemed to be predicated on the fact that a state's militia consisted of some "who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty," which is a pretty silly argument. The second amendment was about the right of the state to have the militia, not the right of individuals to have guns to bring to a militia. It's not even how most militias ran themselves.


When the amendment was first proposed by Madison it encompassed the right of states to formally train militias, but that is not the compromise federalists and anti-federalists have ultimately reached. The Bill of Rights as a whole enumerates individual rights, not state rights - it applies to citizens. Nobody in their right mind would interpret the right to petition the government for redress of grievences or the right to free speech and assembly as rights that only apply to the state or organised lobbyists approved by the state.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2001_02/amendment.htm

We can see the sentiment towards 2A in Madison's private correspondence, so there can be no confusion regarding intent, or what they meant by "arms".


> Just ten days after James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789, Tench Coxe, a prominent federalist and life-long correspondent of Jefferson and Madison, wrote that what became the second amendment would confirm the people "in their right to keep and bear their *private* arms."
> 
> James Madison endorsed the widely published article in which these words appear. Coxe's writings provide unmistakable evidence that eighteenth-century Americans defined muskets, rifles, and pistols as "arms," and that they endorsed an individual "right to own and keep and use arms and consequently of self-defense and of the public militia power."


https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp#:~:text=Just ten days afterJames Madison,and bear their private arms."

Besides, the right to bear arms has been fiercely defended in the Supreme Court long before there even was an NRA. Americans have owned arms privately since before the United States even declared independence, and that hasn't changed after it did.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Murder is illegal.



Joe Strummer said it the best. 

“Murder Is a crime!
Unless it was done
By a policeman or an aristocrat
Know your rights“


----------



## g00s3y (Jun 24, 2021)

Imagine having nothing better to do in life than stupid things like this.

OP is screaming for attention, sad.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 24, 2021)

g00s3y said:


> Imagine having nothing better to do in life than stupid things like this.
> 
> OP is screaming for attention, sad.


well thats what happens when you not popular enough on Parler. You search for unrelated gaming websites to seek attention from.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> When the amendment was first proposed by Madison it encompassed the right of states to formally train militias, but that is not the compromise federalists and anti-federalists have ultimately reached. The Bill of Rights as a whole enumerates individual rights, not state rights - it applies to citizens. Nobody in their right mind would interpret the right to petition the government for redress of grievences or the right to free speech and assembly as rights that only apply to the state or organised lobbyists approved by the state.
> 
> https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/2001_02/amendment.htm


The Tenth Amendment would like a word with you, as well as the Second Amendment.



Foxi4 said:


> Even Madison himself says as much in his private correspondence, so there can be no confusion regarding intent, or what they meant by "arms".
> 
> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp#:~:text=Just ten days afterJames Madison,and bear their private arms."


I haven't seen any writings from Madison that suggest he considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be anything other than to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that militias would not be disarmed.

Linked below is the letter in which Madison allegedly endorses Coxe's view of the Second Amendment, and there appears to be nothing there. Halbrook is apparently mistaken.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0089



Foxi4 said:


> Besides, the right to bear arms has been fiercely defended in the Supreme Court long before there even was an NRA. Americans have owned arms privately since before the United States even declared independence, and that hasn't changed after it did.


The Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment applied to individuals before 2008's _District of Columbia v. Heller_, as a direct consequence of the work the NRA had been doing for 30 years.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> The Tenth Amendment would like a word with you, as well as the Second Amendment.


That's a fair criticism. One could have a whole separate argument on whether the scope of the Bill of Rights was extended past its original, intended scope through certain amendments.



> I haven't seen any writings from Madison that suggest he considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be anything other than to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that militias would not be disarmed.
> 
> Linked below is the letter in which Madison allegedly endorses Coxe's view of the Second Amendment, and there appears to be nothing there. Halbrook is apparently mistaken.
> https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0089


Neither Jefferson nor Madison seem to "correct" Coxe on his assumption regarding the second amendment, both of them appear to accept that it refers to a pre-existing right that all Americans already had that was merely being reinforced on paper. I've seen the issue tackled in some of the Federalist Papers, but I would have to look into it more closely to provide you with a specific quote. For the record, the text of the Constitution refers to rights that are held to be self-evident. To me, it seems like both Madison and Jefferson consider that right self-evident also, as they didn't even think to challenge the assumption that it applied to private individuals, as it had before signing the document.


> The Supreme Court had *never ruled that the Second Amendment applied to individuals before 2008*'s _District of Columbia v. Heller_, as a direct consequence of the work the NRA had been doing for 30 years.


Wrong. Presser v. Illinois, 1886. The court specifically ruled that the right applies to individuals, not militias. Scalia wasn't even a twinkle in his great-great-grandfather's eye.


> We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe *the right of the people to keep and bear arms*. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.


The case in question reaffirmed that the right to bear arms refers to individuals, however the second amendment only restrains Congress, not state legislatures. The latter part was later overruled by McDonald v. City of Chicago.


> This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of *the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals*. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was *a right of individuals*, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to *an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up* by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although *individuals have the right to keep and bear arms*, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States


----------



## 0x3000027E (Jun 24, 2021)

Awww....I miss political debates on GBATemp...

Left vs. Right!!!! Red vs. Blue!!!! Who has the bigger dick!!>??? YAAAY
EDIT: And Foxi, before you think about banning me, I have contributed plenty to these discussions, in attempts to discourage others from "taking opposite sides"


----------



## djpannda (Jun 24, 2021)

0x3000027E said:


> Awww....I miss political debates on GBATemp...
> 
> Left vs. Right!!!! Red vs. Blue!!!! Who has the bigger dick!!>??? YAAAY


hmm excuse me but some of us don't even have a dick!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a fair criticism. One could have a whole separate argument on whether the scope of the Bill of Rights was extended past its original, intended scope through certain amendments.
> 
> Neither Jefferson nor Madison seem to "correct" Coxe on his assumption regarding the second amendment, both of them appear to accept that it refers to a pre-existing right that all Americans already had that was merely being reinforced on paper. I've seen the issue tackled in some of the Federalist Papers, but I would have to look into it more closely to provide you with a specific quote. For the record, the text of the Constitution refers to rights that are held to be self-evident. To me, it seems like both Madison and Jefferson consider that right self-evident also, as they didn't even think to challenge the assumption that it applied to private individuals, as it had before signing the document.
> Wrong. Presser v. Illinois, 1886. The court specifically ruled that the right applies to individuals, not militias. Scalia wasn't even a twinkle in his great-great-grandfather's eye.
> ...


Presser v. Illinois Holding:
The states may forbid private armies. The Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

_"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances._

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Presser v. Illinois Holding:
> The states may forbid private armies. The Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.
> 
> _"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> ...


That's literally what I said. Among other things. Perhaps you should follow both links, or read the full decision. Each SC decision has a specific justification which effectively becomes law, just as much as the decision itself.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> That's literally what I said. Among other things. Perhaps you should follow both links, or read the full decision. Each SC decision has a specific justification which effectively becomes law, just as much as the decision itself.


To reiterate, Presser v. Illinois is about whether or not people can form private militias (they Supreme Court ruled they can't). It's about the right of the state to keep and maintain a militia, not about private gun ownership.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> To reiterate, Presser v. Illinois is about whether or not people can form private militias (they Supreme Court ruled they can't). It's about the right of the state to keep and maintain a militia, not about private gun ownership.


It specifically states the right of private citizens to bear arms is a necessary pre-requisite to forming militias and/or other organised groups of armed men, however it does not prohibit individual states from restricting and/or regulating such assembly. It, in effect, enshrines 2A as an individual right, as opposed to a right to form militias and *then* procure arms.

EDIT: This isn't really worth arguing over. No constitutional scholar would ever make the assertion you're trying to make, unless they felt like getting ridiculed by their colleagues that day. If this is an instance of "Wikipedia is wrong, the Supreme Court is wrong, the entire legal system which enshrines 2A as an individual right of private citizens is wrong and Lacius is right" then I'm outtie, this isn't a chat worth having.

The second amendment refers to individuals. It has been upheld as such over the course of centuries and was always intended to function in this way. It is also very clear what kinds of "arms" it refers to, and it's not "swords".


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> It specifically states the right of private citizens to bear arms is a necessary pre-requisite to forming militias and/or other organised groups of armed men, however it does not prohibit individual states from restricting and/or regulating such assembly. It, in effect, enshrines 2A as an individual right.


I don't see anything in the ruling that says that.

_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms._

In other words, prohibiting private militias doesn't interfere with the constitutional right to state militias. That's all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I don't see anything in the ruling that says that.
> 
> _We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms._
> 
> In other words, prohibiting private militias doesn't interfere with the constitutional right to state militias. That's all.


I already quoted the relevant part of the article linked. Your inability to infer meaning from a piece of text presented is not my concern. Here's a relevant fragment of the actual decision.


> It is *undoubtedly true* that *all citizens* capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, *the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms*, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and *disable the people* from performing their duty to the general government.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252

So, to reiterate, Congress cannot infringe upon the 2A because the 2A is a specific limitation on the powers of the federal government. In addition, it is *undoubtedly true* that the states themselves cannot infringe on the right to bear arms *either*. Anything else?


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

I never saw anything in the full text of the second amendment that says Congress can't tell people to put away their guns. Arms /= Firearms


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> I never saw anything in the full text of the second amendment that says Congress can't tell people to put away their guns. Arms /= Firearms


Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.


When reading the constitution I look at the dang text and decide everything with its dictionary meaning.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

???????????? pic.twitter.com/u00esLRDuN— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 24, 2021

In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this


----------



## WG481 (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1408137828119240706
> In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this


That's a very conservative news feed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

WG481 said:


> When reading the constitution I look at the dang text and decide everything with its dictionary meaning.


That's very nice, but words change meaning over time, and certain grammatical constructions go out of favour and are replaced by others. If you met anyone who spoke or wrote in the manner the founding fathers have, you'd think they were an alien. You can of course have a different opinion, and you're entitled to be wrong - you live in a free country, I presume. It's a good thing the U.S. has the Supreme Court to resolve such conundrums, instead of relying on the opinion of "a guy on the Internet".


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I already quoted the relevant part of the article linked. Your inability to infer meaning from a piece of text presented is not my concern. Here's a relevant fragment of the actual decision.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252
> 
> So, to reiterate, Congress cannot infringe upon the 2A because the 2A is a specific limitation on the powers of the federal government. In addition, it is *undoubtedly true* that the states themselves cannot infringe on the right to bear arms *either*. Anything else?


Everything you just posted is in direction connection with service in a militia. As I previously stated in my original post, it was not until
_District of Columbia v. Heller_ that the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia.



Foxi4 said:


> Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.


"Arms" meant something wholly different than what it means today. Does the Second Amendment only pertain to old timey muskets, for example?



Valwinz said:


> https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1408137828119240706
> In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this


It's amazing what cutting out preceding comments and questions will do to the context of a video.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

How the fuck is this thread still going?  What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them?  The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread.  Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other.  This isn't that complicated.


----------



## djpannda (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> How the fuck is this thread still going?  What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them?  The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread.  Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other.  This isn't that complicated.


foxi stated he was going to have it look at but didn't mention anything else after that... This thread should of been closed 6 hours ago.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 24, 2021)

djpannda said:


> foxi stated he was going to have it look at but didn't mention anything else after that... This thread should of been closed 6 hours ago.


It should've been closed ten minutes after it was posted, but Foxi clearly can't be trusted to stay impartial in matters like these.  He's just letting Valwinz have the run of the place and slowly turn it into 4chan.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 24, 2021)

Xzi said:


> How the fuck is this thread still going?  What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them?  The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread.  Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other.  This isn't that complicated.


100% agree the thread is just fucking sick concidering the presidents age and the fact he may or may not have mental health issues.

Making fun of someone for being old or for being mentally unwell is fucking wrong.


----------



## Jayro (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> US won Vietnam


No we didn't, we got our asses handed to us by Vietnamese farmers. Quite an embarrassing moment in our history, really.


----------



## Valwinz (Jun 24, 2021)

Jayro said:


> No we didn't, we got our asses handed to us by Vietnamese farmers. Quite an embarrassing moment in our history, really.


why did we not nuke them or use our F15 equivalent at the time?


----------



## Jayro (Jun 24, 2021)

Valwinz said:


> why did we not nuke them or use our F15 equivalent at the time?


That is definitely a question.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Everything you just posted is in direction connection with service in a militia. As I previously stated in my original post, it was not until _District of Columbia v. Heller_ that the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia.


False. It specifically states that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals, regardless of whether or not they're currently a part of militia. It is their right inherently, by the virtue of being citizens of the United States, and neither the state nor the federal government can infringe upon it as in doing so they would deprive the United States of a valuable resource - armed men that can be called upon to protect their state or country. It is written in black and white. If you have a different interpretation, please post a correction on Wikipedia instead of arguing with me (it will be rejected, mind - you're wrong, as evidenced multiple times earlier).


> "Arms" meant something wholly different than what it means today. Does the Second Amendment only pertain to old timey muskets, for example?


Oh, I don't know - you tell me. Considering the fact that Lewis and Clarke adventured across North America armed with a fully automatic Girardoni air rifle equipped with a high capacity gravity-fed magazine and a muzzle velocity that rivaled black powder muskets at the time, allowing them to fairly easily dispatch an armed group of men with puny muzzle loaders, I presume the founders had some inclination on how technology was going to progress in the future. Private citizens, particularly merchants and militia members, were also permitted to own high caliber cannons, as well as gatling guns and explosives. The puckle gun for instance dates all the way back to 1718 and was equipped with an 11-round cylinder, compared to... well, no cylinder in a muzzle loaded musket - that's 11 times more better. Who knows though, who knows - maybe they had some restrictions in mind, despite the fact that everyday citizens were already permitted to be armed better than the military was at the time, provided they could afford it.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> False. It specifically states that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals, regardless of whether or not they're currently a part of militia.\


You're dishonestly leaving out the part where the Supreme Court says it's because they can be considered reserve members of the state militia.



Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I don't know - you tell me. Considering the fact that Lewis and Clarke adventured across North America armed with a fully automatic Girardoni air rifle equipped with a high capacity gravity-fed magazine and a muzzle velocity that rivaled black powder muskets at the time, allowing them to fairly easily dispatch an armed group of men with puny muzzle loaders, I presume the founders had some inclination on how technology was going to progress in the future. Private citizens, particularly merchants and militia members, were also permitted to own high caliber cannons, as well as gatling guns and explosives. The puckle gun for instance dates all the way back to 1718 and was equipped with an 11-round cylinder, compared to... well, no cilinder in a muzzle loaded musket - that's 11 times more better. Who knows though, who knows - maybe they had some restrictions in mind, despite the fact that everyday citizens were already permitted to be armed better than the military was at the time, provided they could afford it.


Are you saying modern Americans only have a constitutional right to air rifles and other guns around during the late 18th century? That would at least be consistent with your views against "bizarre abominations of law."


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> You're dishonestly leaving out the part where the Supreme Court says it's because they can be considered reserve members of the state militia.


How am I leaving it out? I directly quoted it. In the time of need I would expect any armed and capable American to defend their home and country, particularly in the event of an invasion. This doesn't affect the fact that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals and that the Supreme Court stated as much long before 2008.


> Are you saying modern Americans only have a constitutional right to air rifles and other guns around during the late 18th century? That would at least be consistent with your views against "bizarre abominations of law."


I state that the American citizenry should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military if that is their fancy, which is congruent with the SC's ruling that any armed individual can be called upon to defend home and country. That was the status quo then, and it should be the status quo now. I find things like the Assault Weapons Ban as inherently unconstitutional governmental overreach that should've never been allowed to happen, and it is criminal that it *wasn't* immediately overturned. It was also ineffective according to multiple studies. I share similar feelings in regards to fully automatic weapons and see no reason why responsible citizens should be prohibited from owning them. I do however make the "responsible citizens" concession since I am not blind to the realities of this world. Not everyone is *capable* of being responsible with a firearm, in the same way as not everybody is able to be a responsible driver. Mental illness and other afflictions affect one's ability to bear arms responsibly, so I'm not opposed to a degree of gun control, including background checks and training requirements, in regards to testing the ability of a firearms license applicant or their criminal history. I believe the founders thought the same, as they often refer to "able" men, and not everyone is "able".


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> How am I leaving it out? I directly quoted it. In the time of need I would expect any armed and capable American to defend their home and country, particularly in the event of an invasion. This doesn't affect the fact that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals and that the Supreme Court stated as much long before 2008.


Once again, the Supreme Court did not rule until 2008 that individuals had a right to gun ownership separate and apart from concerns about militia rights.



Foxi4 said:


> I state that the American citizenry should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military if that is their fancy, which is congruent with the SC's ruling that any armed individual can be called upon to defend home and country. That was the status quo then, and it should be the status quo now. I find things like the Assault Weapons Ban as inherently unconstitutional governmental overreach that should've never been allowed to happen, and it is criminal that it *wasn't* immediately overturned. It was also ineffective according to multiple studies. I share similar feelings in regards to fully automatic weapons and see no reason why responsible citizens should be prohibited from owning them. I do however make the "responsible citizens" concession since I am not blind to the realities of this world. Not everyone is *capable* of being responsible with a firearm, in the same way as not everybody is able to be a responsible driver. Mental illness and other afflictions affect one's ability to bear arms responsibly, so I'm not opposed to a degree of gun control, including background checks and training requirements, in regards to testing the ability of a firearms license applicant or their criminal history. I believe the founders thought the same, as they often refer to "able" men, and not everyone is "able".


You're sidestepping the point I was making. Do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military today, or do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms the U.S. military had in the 18th century? For an originalist to be consistent, it would have to be the latter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Once again, the Supreme Court did not rule until 2008 that individuals had a right to gun ownership separate and apart from concerns about militia rights.


False. They have that right de facto, and the ability to form various kinds of groups of armed men is its consequence, not the other way around. That was the ruling, as quoted.


> You're sidestepping the point I was making. Do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military today, or do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms the U.S. military had in the 18th century? For an originalist to be consistent, it would have to be the latter.


False. An originalist can see that citizens at the time were allowed to be armed to the same or even superior extent as the military was. That is the framing the founders operated in, so the right to bear arms must necessarily mean the right to bear *the same arms* as we (the government) bear. That was the original intent, and that is the originalist interpretation. If you find that interpretation to be inconsistent, you must think that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the Internet, or the Radio, or any other form of communicating a message that the founders were not familiar with. That's asinine - it is an inherent right that applies to all forms of communication.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> False. They have that right de facto, and the ability to form various kinds of groups of armed men is its consequence, not the other way around. That was the ruling, as quoted.


Can you quote the part of the ruling that said individuals had a right to gun ownership that was unrelated to militia rights? You can't. You're misunderstanding or misreading the Supreme Court ruling.



> It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.





Foxi4 said:


> False. An originalist can see that citizens at the time were allowed to be armed to the same or even superior extent as the military was. That is the framing the founders operated in, so the right to bear arms must necessarily mean the right to bear *the same arms* as we (the government) bear. That was the original intent, and that is the originalist interpretation.


If their intent was for citizens to be allowed to be armed to the same extent as the military at that time, then an originalist would say that the right to bear arms only includes the arms available to the military at the time it was written.



Foxi4 said:


> If you find that interpretation to be inconsistent, you must think that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the Internet, or the Radio, or any other form of communicating a message that the founders were not familiar with. That's asinine - it is an inherent right that applies to all forms of communication.


Oh, this will be fun. Yeah, an originalist should say Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the internet, the radio, or any other forms of communicating that weren't around during the 18th century, and that's asinine. Sucks for you and the other originalists.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> Can you quote the part of the ruling that said individuals had a right to gun ownership that was unrelated to militia rights? You can't. You're misunderstanding or misreading the Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> If their intent was for citizens to be allowed to be armed to the same extent as the military at that time, then an originalist would say that the right to bear arms only includes the arms available to the military at the time it was written.
> 
> Oh, this will be fun. Yeah, an originalist should say Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the internet, the radio, or any other forms of communicating that weren't around during the 18th century, and that's asinine. Sucks for you and the other originalists.


I see the problem. You don't understand what originalism means. That's fine, it explains a lot. We can end here, this conversation is destined to be fruitless, we're on different wavelengths.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> I see the problem. You don't understand what originalism means. That's fine, it explains a lot. We can end here, this conversation is destined to be fruitless, we're on different wavelengths.


>Tells me I don't understand what originalism means.
>Ends conversation before defining what originalism actually means.

If that isn't evidence that your participation in this conversation isn't in good faith, I don't know what is.

As for originalism, it means the following (per Google):

_a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written._

I'm not sure how in any way, shape, or form it could be suggested that I don't know what originalism means. Each time I used it was in a way that comports with the above definition.

*Snip*


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> >Tells me I don't understand what originalism means.
> >Ends conversation before defining what originalism actually means.
> 
> If that isn't evidence that your participation in this conversation isn't in good faith, I don't know what is.
> ...


This definition is correct. You, on the other hand, are wrong. The founders were perfectly aware of rapid technological progress, in some cases they were even an integral part of it. As such, it is perfectly fair to assume that if they wished to clarify what arms were permitted and what were not, they would qualify said right, as they did with the right to assemble using the word "peaceably". You have the right to assemble, but only if it is a peaceful assembly - a qualifier. The right to bear arms, as it would've been understood at the time, was the right to bear any arms available on the market at any given time, not specific arms available at the time of writing. The constitution wasn't written to be valid for a year or two, it was written to be valid forever. Similarly, if the right to free speech only applied to me talking to you in private, it would've been qualified as such. It is not, therefore it applies to all modes of communication that confer speech. The right to bear arms was *intended* to work perfectly fine in the future and, by extension, encompasses any future weapons that may be developed. Had that not been the case, it would've been more specific in terms of applicability. Freedom of speech applies to the telephone, the right to bear arms applies to modern arms.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2021)

Foxi4 said:


> This definition is correct. You, on the other hand, are wrong. The founders were perfectly aware of rapid technological progress, is some cases they were even an integral part of it. As such, it is perfectly fair to assume that if they wished to clarify what arms were permitted and what were not, they would qualify said right, as they did with the right to assemble using the word "peaceably". You have the right to assemble, but only if it is a peaceful assembly - a qualifier. The right to bear arms, as it would've been understood at the time, was the right to bear any arms available on the market at any given time, not specific arms available at the time of writing. The constitution wasn't written to be valid for a year or two, it was written to be valid forever. Similarly, if the right to free speech only applied to me talking to you in private, it would've been qualified as such. It is not, therefore it applies to all modes of communication that confer speech. The right to bear arms was *intended* to work perfectly fine in the future and, by extension, encompasses any future weapons that may be developed. Had that not been the case, it would've been more specific in terms of applicability. Freedom of speech applies to the telephone, the right to bear arms applies to modern arms.


I'd agree with you on most these points. They're just not very originalist. I assume with these sorts of "living document" sentiments of yours that you agree with the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and sex discrimination as it relates to LGBT discrimination. 

While I'm being serious, I'm also being silly. We don't have to go down those roads. They're a lot.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 24, 2021)

Lacius said:


> I'd agree with you on most these points. They're just not very originalist. I assume with these sorts of "living document" sentiments of yours that you agree with the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and sex discrimination as it relates to LGBT discrimination.
> 
> While I'm being serious, I'm also being silly. We don't have to go down those roads. They're a lot.


I disagree with the notion that my statement confers any kinship towards the living document doctrine. The meaning of the document has not changed - "citizens have a right to bear arms" and "it shall not be infringed". They have this right for various purposes, the listed one being "for the purpose of forming militias and guaranteeing the safety and security of the state", which they are allowed to (not required to) do under "well-regulated" conditions set by the state of origin. From this purpose we can infer that the arms in question are ones that would put the population on equal footing with an opposing force, at any given time. That interpretation would definitely include military-grade firearms, since that is what the military is armed with. It is perfectly consistent - the document hasn't changed, and neither did its provisions. The times have changed, and with time so did technology. That's besides the point though, since not all "living document" arguments are silly, just a select few egregious ones that have nothing to do with 2A. To reiterate, the right to Free Speech applies to the Internet in the same way as the right to bear arms applies to machine guns, in my honest opinion. If only we should be so lucky, they look like a lot of fun to use at the range.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 26, 2021)

After a thorough discussion we've come to the conclusion that this thread should indeed be locked. While we as a team don't have a problem with threads that criticise Joe Biden, just as we didn't have any problem with threads criticising Donald Trump, we do not condone or endorse any threads aimed at making fun of implied physical or mental disability, especially when these claims are not evidenced. Unless a reliable source proves Joe Biden is unfit for his position and provides medical records to back that up, it's not a thread worth having.

Additionally, we don't have an issue with threads compiling, or collecting developments within the scope of a singular issue. For instance, if a thread is about a military conflict, like the recent one in the Gaza strip, we don't see a need for separate threads about each and every development. With that being said, there has to be a common thread that connects such posts - collecting "funny things person X said" that are, for the most part, unrelated is more of an EOF-style thread than an informative one. With that in mind, threads need to also be descriptive and truthfully labelled.

@Valwinz, if this thread was named something along the lines of "Joe Biden criticises the Second Amendment" and the video was followed by a source link and on-topic criticism of the position, it would be permissible. In its current stage it's only flamebait, and with the amount of effort required to edit it to an acceptable standard, irredeemable.

You are more than welcome to criticise Joe Biden and whatever he says, however in doing so you have to follow the specific rules of the section.

Thread locked.


----------

