bunklocoempire
Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,990
Have a good day, dannno.
'Take The Guns First' - Trump's War On The Second Amendment - Ron Paul Liberty Report
- Thread starter bunklocoempire
- Start date
Have a good day, dannno.
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
Hooboy. I don't quite know what to make of this.
On the one hand, I don't at all care for what spewed forth from Trump's piehole. On the other, the context seems to have been excised (didn't watch the whole thing). I am not saying he is right even in context, but that said context may make a large difference in the truest meaning of his intentions. That context was of taking guns first from "crazy" people, then going through due process. I don't agree with that in the least, but place yourself in Trump's position. Almost no matter what he says he is further attacked. I have no idea what goes on inside his head - probably don't want to know, either.
There are too many possibilities here to jump to conclusions yet. Words are important, but today they are cheap, especially in the political arena. Therefore, one must take what is spoken with some measure before jumping to conclusions.
Take, for example, the fact that a year into his term there has been no significant "draining of the swamp" in the eyes of many. I beg to differ. What was it, the entire "seventh floor" at Justice was fired, or some such? People forget quickly. That said, the big fish still run freely and people are understandably concerned about this. But a few days ago Trump made changes within his prerogatives as CIC to the UCMJ, which I posted here on the 2nd of March. Add to this the report that Gitmo is about to complete a refurbishment. This opens possibilities of a massive purge pursuant to drainage. I am wondering whether Trump is going to charge the traitors under NDAA and PATRIOT, render them to Gitmo, give them drumhead trials, and hang the lot of them.
On the one hand, America needs this to happen. On the other hand, history shows us where every political purge of which I am aware has lead: more tyranny and the destruction of truly innocent people. Can Trump keep it in his pants? History would suggest "no", but the historical record is only a statistical view. Taken to the individual case, anything is possible. We are living in very bad times, indeed.
My point here is that Trump likes to play the game of indirection. One must recognize the possibility of feints here - of buying time with the enemy. I am not saying it is in fact the case, but only that it is a reasonable possibility. Consider the Mueller situation, especially vis-à-vis the draining; so far as I can see, whoever strikes first is likely to come out on top. If Trump allows Mueller to bring charges against him, whether validly or falsely, Trump will be the loser. If he socks Clinton, Obama, et al into Gitmo (for which I dare not even hope), Mueller's job becomes orders of magnitude more impossible.
Therefore, these comments may be tactical moves to buy as much time as possible, distasteful and hideous as they are, superficially speaking. Let us be clear that time is decidedly not on Trump's side, yet he cannot make a move without all his ducks in a row. This is all speculation, so please nobody blow an artery over it. My purpose here is to temper the hot emotions. If Trump is as he appears in this case, he will prove it soon enough and will be a single-term president by all means. If he is, we will be faced with a choice we already face: capitulate or fight. It's been there for a century at the very least. Nothing is different, save that the shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment, that which is wholly unavoidable no matter what one does, looms very near now, as opposed to 1913, for instance, when it was decades away at the very least.
So I would recommend a chill pill for now, though time is admittedly drawing short. In the end, I see us as 99.999% certain to be saddled with the fight or capitulate decision. With Trump there remains some tiny shred of plausibility for the idea that we may be able to slowly claw our way out of this abyss without having to make the choice of whether to engage in a Civil War Redux. We're screwed in any case, so I say sit back and keep paying out the rope and see what he does with it. Besides, it is Congress whom we need to watch more closely. It is they who can pass a bill into statute.
It is difficult to estimate time frames, but I would say that if in another year we have not seen something substantial pass for action against the Clinton gang and Obama mob, perhaps it is then time to start considering that we have one of Theire moles in the Seat. It could come beforehand, of course, but here I am assuming status quo.
Be careful with your thoughts. They are important, or should be at least to yourselves. They can lead you readily and easily into the worst places. Maintaining self-control and rational logic can be particularly trying in difficult times such as these. It is fatiguing in the extreme and I am sure I am not the only one experiencing the pinch in that way. Therefore, I recommend we take steps back from the edge and let us remind each other of goodness and propriety in the face of raging tyrannies, whether they issue from the top, or the dregs of the streets of Portland. All we have are each other. Let us not self-destruct; it will buy us nothing good.
On the one hand, I don't at all care for what spewed forth from Trump's piehole. On the other, the context seems to have been excised (didn't watch the whole thing). I am not saying he is right even in context, but that said context may make a large difference in the truest meaning of his intentions. That context was of taking guns first from "crazy" people, then going through due process. I don't agree with that in the least, but place yourself in Trump's position. Almost no matter what he says he is further attacked. I have no idea what goes on inside his head - probably don't want to know, either.
There are too many possibilities here to jump to conclusions yet. Words are important, but today they are cheap, especially in the political arena. Therefore, one must take what is spoken with some measure before jumping to conclusions.
Take, for example, the fact that a year into his term there has been no significant "draining of the swamp" in the eyes of many. I beg to differ. What was it, the entire "seventh floor" at Justice was fired, or some such? People forget quickly. That said, the big fish still run freely and people are understandably concerned about this. But a few days ago Trump made changes within his prerogatives as CIC to the UCMJ, which I posted here on the 2nd of March. Add to this the report that Gitmo is about to complete a refurbishment. This opens possibilities of a massive purge pursuant to drainage. I am wondering whether Trump is going to charge the traitors under NDAA and PATRIOT, render them to Gitmo, give them drumhead trials, and hang the lot of them.
On the one hand, America needs this to happen. On the other hand, history shows us where every political purge of which I am aware has lead: more tyranny and the destruction of truly innocent people. Can Trump keep it in his pants? History would suggest "no", but the historical record is only a statistical view. Taken to the individual case, anything is possible. We are living in very bad times, indeed.
My point here is that Trump likes to play the game of indirection. One must recognize the possibility of feints here - of buying time with the enemy. I am not saying it is in fact the case, but only that it is a reasonable possibility. Consider the Mueller situation, especially vis-à-vis the draining; so far as I can see, whoever strikes first is likely to come out on top. If Trump allows Mueller to bring charges against him, whether validly or falsely, Trump will be the loser. If he socks Clinton, Obama, et al into Gitmo (for which I dare not even hope), Mueller's job becomes orders of magnitude more impossible.
Therefore, these comments may be tactical moves to buy as much time as possible, distasteful and hideous as they are, superficially speaking. Let us be clear that time is decidedly not on Trump's side, yet he cannot make a move without all his ducks in a row. This is all speculation, so please nobody blow an artery over it. My purpose here is to temper the hot emotions. If Trump is as he appears in this case, he will prove it soon enough and will be a single-term president by all means. If he is, we will be faced with a choice we already face: capitulate or fight. It's been there for a century at the very least. Nothing is different, save that the shit-or-get-off-the-pot moment, that which is wholly unavoidable no matter what one does, looms very near now, as opposed to 1913, for instance, when it was decades away at the very least.
So I would recommend a chill pill for now, though time is admittedly drawing short. In the end, I see us as 99.999% certain to be saddled with the fight or capitulate decision. With Trump there remains some tiny shred of plausibility for the idea that we may be able to slowly claw our way out of this abyss without having to make the choice of whether to engage in a Civil War Redux. We're screwed in any case, so I say sit back and keep paying out the rope and see what he does with it. Besides, it is Congress whom we need to watch more closely. It is they who can pass a bill into statute.
It is difficult to estimate time frames, but I would say that if in another year we have not seen something substantial pass for action against the Clinton gang and Obama mob, perhaps it is then time to start considering that we have one of Theire moles in the Seat. It could come beforehand, of course, but here I am assuming status quo.
Be careful with your thoughts. They are important, or should be at least to yourselves. They can lead you readily and easily into the worst places. Maintaining self-control and rational logic can be particularly trying in difficult times such as these. It is fatiguing in the extreme and I am sure I am not the only one experiencing the pinch in that way. Therefore, I recommend we take steps back from the edge and let us remind each other of goodness and propriety in the face of raging tyrannies, whether they issue from the top, or the dregs of the streets of Portland. All we have are each other. Let us not self-destruct; it will buy us nothing good.
Last edited:
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Granted MAGA is nort perfect, some of the GOA leaders attacks on MAGA crossed the line:
'Gun-grabber-in-chief': Conservatives turn on Trump as threat to confiscate guns prompts Second Amendment-related outrage
'He's a fraud and has betrayed us twice now'
CCTelander
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 9,173
Granted MAGA is nort perfect, some of the GOA leaders attacks on MAGA crossed the line:
'Gun-grabber-in-chief': Conservatives turn on Trump as threat to confiscate guns prompts Second Amendment-related outrage
'He's a fraud and has betrayed us twice now'
One might call it an EPIC flip flop.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Trump's latest SCOTUS pick will put an end to most of the infringements on the 2ndA, he knows that and it was always his plan.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Perhaps, past history will not predict future next time as you suggest.
But conservatives are in shock after his recent picks sided with liberals on various issues including the 2nd amend:
"Conservative" SCOTUS Rules LBGT protected by law, but punts gun rights cases
Trump Weighs ‘Red Flag’ Orders to Take Guns Away Quickly
Gorsuch sides with liberal justices in finding gun law to be ...
thehill
Jun 24, 2019
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 that a federal law allowing for gun convictions...
U.S. Justice Gorsuch again sides with liberals
reuters
Jun 26, 2019 - For the second time in three days, conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday sided with his four liberal colleagues ...
Gorsuch's Supreme Court LGBTQ opinion shakes conservatives
latimes
Jun 17, 2020 - Justice Neil Gorsuch was President Trump's first choice and a conservative dream, until he sided with liberals...
Kavanaugh, Roberts side with liberal judges on Planned Parenthood case
By ALICE MIRANDA OLLSTEIN
12/10/2018
Kavanaugh and Roberts Side with Liberals to Hand Environmentalists Huge Win
Colin Kalmbacher Apr 23rd, 2020
Last edited:
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
Similar threads
