OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2018 10:04:43 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 5, 2018 10:19:08 GMT -5
From your link: "As Commander of Oregon's Guard, I'm deeply troubled by Trump's plan to militarize our border."
She added: "There's been no outreach by the President or federal officials, and I have no intention of allowing Oregon's guard troops to be used to distract from his troubles in Washington."
Sounds like she is doing her job.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 5, 2018 10:28:07 GMT -5
Note to 2nd Amendment supporters:
This is the intent of that amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 10:49:39 GMT -5
What an awesome world it would be if people would actually educate themselves on an issue before putting out inflammatory, incorrect subject titles: www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna862891Whole article is pertinent so not citing any particular quote. It is so clear to me now how we end up electing the people we do.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,754
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2018 10:56:19 GMT -5
We have a number of fake news purveyors here, @aj
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 11:04:03 GMT -5
We have a number of fake news purveyors here, @aj Sometimes I have a hard time telling when it is willful dissemination with knowledge of the truth, willful ignorance, or incapability to comprehend.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 11:59:08 GMT -5
Note to 2nd Amendment supporters: This is the intent of that amendment. With all subsequent Supreme Court rulings applied ?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,754
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2018 12:05:00 GMT -5
Andy Borowitz 18 hrs · Stormy Daniels to Entertain Troops at Mexican Border
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Apr 5, 2018 12:36:59 GMT -5
What an awesome world it would be if people would actually educate themselves on an issue before putting out inflammatory, incorrect subject titles: www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna862891Whole article is pertinent so not citing any particular quote. It is so clear to me now how we end up electing the people we do. What I found interesting is the graph showing the # of illegals crossing border into USA from Mexico...In 2001 there were 1.6 million illegals crossing...in 2017 there were 350,000 illegals...As has been reported..because of Trumps rhetoric and tougher stance the # coming in has been dropped drastic...thus the call to suggest finding different ways, less expensive ways, of curtailing these folks entering the USA. To get to zero is not going to happen...and at a cost of 20/25 Billion for the wall plus cost to keep it up...just a expense not affordable...especially since we are going to have to pay for it...not Mexico.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 5, 2018 14:09:56 GMT -5
Note to 2nd Amendment supporters: This is the intent of that amendment. With all subsequent Supreme Court rulings applied ? No
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2018 16:27:09 GMT -5
Fake news huh, did you notice that it was a story from MSN. left leaning liberal news rag!
LOL!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,754
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 5, 2018 16:59:52 GMT -5
Fake news huh, did you notice that it was a story from MSN. left leaning liberal news rag! LOL! The fake news is the title of this thread versus the actual title and content of the article. The governor did not say she was against Mexico border security. She said she did not want to send the Oregon national guard to to the border and was against militarizing the border when there already is a border patrol.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2018 17:02:43 GMT -5
And the winner for this one is #3, incapability to comprehend.
The fake news was the subject of the thread, not the original article cited.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Apr 5, 2018 18:18:38 GMT -5
Fake news huh, did you notice that it was a story from MSN. left leaning liberal news rag! LOL! Seems the story was all over...not just exclusive to MSN
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,919
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 6, 2018 8:34:46 GMT -5
I agree with the Oregon governor. This is not a wise and appropriate use of the National Guard especially from non border states. Do we really want to use the National Guard to guard the border simply because we aren't finding enough FT better paid people to guard it? Who would be available then for state emergencies? I just read a bit on the National Guard website. Federal deployments are usually 12 months. I bet there is job loss for the individuals involved when that happens. Fifteen to sixty days in state is easier for employers to work around.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Apr 6, 2018 9:49:16 GMT -5
One snarky question: is Oregon a sanctuary state? Maybe CA, AZ NM, TX can ship all illegals there.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 12:34:46 GMT -5
One snarky question: is Oregon a sanctuary state? Maybe CA, AZ NM, TX can ship all illegals there. United We Stand, Divided We FallThe concept of one country with borders, is elusive to some. Divide and conquer in respect to winning an election against the opposing party, is sometimes carried too far, to the detriment of everyone residing within those borders.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2018 12:37:44 GMT -5
With all subsequent Supreme Court rulings applied ? No So you would agree to a national background check for the 2nd and 15th amendment, in a like verification of suitability, to exercise those rights ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 6, 2018 13:54:42 GMT -5
So you would agree to a national background check for the 2nd and 15th amendment, in a like verification of suitability, to exercise those rights ? I am not sure how you determine "suitability" in regards to the 15th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The person is of a race? Check The person is a color? Check The person did or did not have a previous condition of servitude? Check Can't be denied a right to vote. Check Not really quite like that "well regulated militia" thing.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 7, 2018 21:50:39 GMT -5
Actually need an ID to vote, Wow That is a concept!
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Apr 8, 2018 0:35:18 GMT -5
Fake news huh, did you notice that it was a story from MSN. left leaning liberal news rag! LOL! I am thinking u are from the school of "kill the messenger" on news and reported events your not pleased with... It's a factual story, reported by just about all media sources...even "Fox"....so what is your problem...? Possible our current leader and his rhetoric is getting to u...and not in a good way....just saying.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 12:44:43 GMT -5
So you would agree to a national background check for the 2nd and 15th amendment, in a like verification of suitability, to exercise those rights ? I am not sure how you determine "suitability" in regards to the 15th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The person is of a race? Check The person is a color? Check The person did or did not have a previous condition of servitude? Check Can't be denied a right to vote. Check Not really quite like that "well regulated militia" thing. No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues.
|
|
bean29
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 10,006
|
Post by bean29 on Apr 10, 2018 15:53:05 GMT -5
I am not sure how you determine "suitability" in regards to the 15th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The person is of a race? Check The person is a color? Check The person did or did not have a previous condition of servitude? Check Can't be denied a right to vote. Check Not really quite like that "well regulated militia" thing. No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues. I say if you are willing to abridge other people's right to vote, you should lose your right to vote. How does that sound?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 10, 2018 18:10:47 GMT -5
I am not sure how you determine "suitability" in regards to the 15th Amendment. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The person is of a race? Check The person is a color? Check The person did or did not have a previous condition of servitude? Check Can't be denied a right to vote. Check Not really quite like that "well regulated militia" thing. No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues. If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 10, 2018 19:43:10 GMT -5
No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues. If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 13:06:22 GMT -5
No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues. I say if you are willing to abridge other people's right to vote, you should lose your right to vote. How does that sound? My point has nothing to do with taking away someone's right to vote. It has nothing to do with how something "sounds". It does have to do with a background check to exercise one amendments right vs another.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 20:50:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 13:17:23 GMT -5
No amendment is "quite like the other", that's why they are numbered and separate. They are alike however as they are amendments to be followed as law. You forgot some for the 2nd amendment. Quote; the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You did get the 15th in it's entirety however. Why just that one? Suitability would be determined for both by the background check as you listed, plus Citizen? Check Felon? Check Diagnosis of mental disorder? Check Seems like a reasonable/prudent restriction, that if one amendment requires a background check to exercise said right, so should others. David Hogg and similar types should also be restricted with a background check to allow usage of the first amendment, before being allowed to speak on the national stage through the media. According to existing health law requirements, people under 26? are still are still able to get health insurance from their parents. That would be a good starting age to check for, before allowing public speaking on national issues. If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First. The whole argument is a waste of time with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling verifying the individual right. A "well regulated militia" no longer applies to the individual right. Some times 'progressive' applies to something a liberal does not agree with. Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 11, 2018 13:28:53 GMT -5
If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First. The whole argument is a waste of time with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling verifying the individual right. A "well regulated militia" no longer applies to the individual right. Some times 'progressive' applies to something a liberal does not agree with. Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._HellerI would take issue with your wording. Heller did not "verify" an individual right. It "created" one. Very different.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,617
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 11, 2018 14:57:08 GMT -5
If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First. The whole argument is a waste of time ... Agreed. The only way one can counter the background checks for the 15th Amendment argument is with logic.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,531
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 11, 2018 15:17:30 GMT -5
If the words "well regulated" appeared in the 15th Amendment, I would be there with you. But they don't. Nor do they appear in the First. The whole argument is a waste of time with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling verifying the individual right. A "well regulated militia" no longer applies to the individual right. Some times 'progressive' applies to something a liberal does not agree with. Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Not unless a subsequent the Supreme Court ruling reverses this ruling. In an everchanging environment this is not beyond the realm of possibilities.
|
|