Would the military support a Trump Coup?

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why would the US have a coup?

We have a Constitution

You people don't like it.

Don’t like it?

We wrote it

Too funny. It was written by the classical liberals of the 18th Century, not the misnomered neo-Communists of the 21st, with whom there is no philosophical relation.

Liberals

Oh, the density of your skull ...

 

[DrainBamage]

Those to the Left of the spectrum.

The thing with "cartoon stereotypes" is that they all have their roots in reality.

So who? You're still manufacturing some boogey-man opinion to attack instead of simply singling out which poster in this thread hates the US Constitution. Who is it?

If you can't name specifically who hates the US Constitution you're basically arguing against an opinion that you created, right?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Trump is jut an asshole...he is not a totalitarian level asshole though. Unless...his Jew handlers are down with that.

 

[westwall]

If Trump orders the military to install him as dictator will it obey? Can he depend on the troops to obey his orders? Can he depend on the generals to obey his orders?

You know how often foreign dictators have been able to get their troops to fall in line, could you say "no"?

My professor used to say iif you want to take over a country take over the army and the police.

It would be a "counter coup", so yeah, they would line up all those bastards.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Those to the Left of the spectrum.

The thing with "cartoon stereotypes" is that they all have their roots in reality.

So who? You're still manufacturing some boogey-man opinion to attack instead of simply singling out which poster in this thread hates the US Constitution. Who is it?

If you can't name specifically who hates the US Constitution you're basically arguing against an opinion that you created, right?

Democrats, ya git. If you have posted here for any length of time you know who they are.

They have collectively slipped completely off the American cracker.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Those to the Left of the spectrum.

The thing with "cartoon stereotypes" is that they all have their roots in reality.

So who? You're still manufacturing some boogey-man opinion to attack instead of simply singling out which poster in this thread hates the US Constitution. Who is it?

If you can't name specifically who hates the US Constitution you're basically arguing against an opinion that you created, right?

Democrats, ya git. If you have posted here for any length of time you know who they are.

They have collectively slipped completely off the American cracker.

The definition would be anyone not rank and file exactly like the Rumpsters. Sorry, but that only makes up about 36 very loud nasty percentage points. I used to be a Republican until the John Birch Society screwed things up and took it over. And you are too dim to see it. But the rest of us Fiscal Conservatives won't vote for your bunch of criminals. Better to sit out the next 4 or 6 or 8 years until the GOP comes to it's senses.

 

[DrainBamage]

Democrats, ya git. If you have posted here for any length of time you know who they are.

They have collectively slipped completely off the American cracker.

So again, who? In the time it took you to write that you could have just named someone.

Name the poster who hates the Constitution, we'll ask them if it's true, and this will all be settled right?

*crickets*

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Democrats, ya git. If you have posted here for any length of time you know who they are.

They have collectively slipped completely off the American cracker.

So again, who? In the time it took you to write that you could have just named someone.

Name the poster who hates the Constitution, we'll ask them if it's true, and this will all be settled right?

*crickets*

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

 

[DrainBamage]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

 

[westwall]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

 

[westwall]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

Answer a simple question first. What was the Founders purpose for including the 2nd in The Bill of Rights?

 

[DrainBamage]

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

No, that's not correct either. The world isn't so black and white, it is entirely possible that someone can like the US Constitution while being against parts of it. There are many laws I disagree with, it doesn't mean I'm against the concept of laws or hate the state book of statutes.

Bottom line though that moron said "You people don't like it" referring to the US Constitution then hilariously can't name a single person in this thread who could be described as not liking it. People who argue like that are puddle deep and deserve no respect, they can't even stand up and argue against a point someone actually made so are forced to manufacture ridiculous anonymous opinions to attack.

 

[rightwinger]

The voters will execute a coup

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

Answer a simple question first. What was the Founders purpose for including the 2nd in The Bill of Rights?

You answer mine first. Do you believe that I am against the 2nd amendment? Simple answer. And you can answer it with a simple yes or no. No deflection allowed.

 

[westwall]

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

No, that's not correct either. The world isn't so black and white, it is entirely possible that someone can like the US Constitution while being against parts of it. There are many laws I disagree with, it doesn't mean I'm against the concept of laws or hate the state book of statutes.

Bottom line though that moron said "You people don't like it" referring to the US Constitution then hilariously can't name a single person in this thread who could be described as not liking it. People who argue like that are puddle deep and deserve no respect, they can't even stand up and argue against a point someone actually made so are forced to manufacture ridiculous anonymous opinions to attack.

The COTUS is a legal puzzle. It stands together, or it falls apart. All parts require each other to survive.

 

[westwall]

The voters will execute a coup

Then it isn't a coup. It is how the Founders intended our government to work.

None of us have a problem with voting. We do have a problem with vote fraud.

 

[westwall]

Not necessary. You are well aware of what I said.

Now run along.

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

Answer a simple question first. What was the Founders purpose for including the 2nd in The Bill of Rights?

You answer mine first. Do you believe that I am against the 2nd amendment? Simple answer. And you can answer it with a simple yes or no. No deflection allowed.

Yes. Based on your responses I believe you are fundamentally anti 2nd amendment. You refuse to acknowledge what the original intent of the 2nd is. Until you acknowledge why the 2nd was written, and agree with that fundamental precept. You are anti 2nd.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So instead of just typing in the name of this person you'd rather generate a dozen posts avoiding doing so.

Bottom line = you were fighting a straw man, nobody here holds the opinion you're attacking and you know it. That's the sign of a stupid man with a weak argument. When you're done arguing against the boogeyman you've invented come on back to the forums and talk to real people, you coward.

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

Answer a simple question first. What was the Founders purpose for including the 2nd in The Bill of Rights?

You answer mine first. Do you believe that I am against the 2nd amendment? Simple answer. And you can answer it with a simple yes or no. No deflection allowed.

Yes. Based on your responses I believe you are fundamentally anti 2nd amendment. You refuse to acknowledge what the original intent of the 2nd is. Until you acknowledge why the 2nd was written, and agree with that fundamental precept. You are anti 2nd.

Now we have a basis for discussion.

The 2nd was written to prevent what the Brits tried to do to the Patriots before the Revolution. They tried to take the one groups guns while leaving the Tories armed. Then the Brits levied taxes that the "Patriots" (for the lack of a better word) found unacceptable. Taxation without representation leaving them with no way to contest it. That taxation was enforced at gun point. Not a very complicated issue.

By taking or preventing the "Patriots" from having guns, it also removed their ability to protect their homes and family from marauding indians and bandits. So we have an even bigger problem for the rural people and MOST "Patriots" were rural.

For the Revolution, only about 8% of the current population were actually involved on the "Patriots" side actively. The Birth of this nation was done by that few.

Now, the 2nd was the direct result of the first two things I stated. But it was meant for White Men of Good Standings to be armed under the Constitution. It did not include women, those of color, bonded or slaves, and others. It meant Land Owners and Merchants. It was as inclusive as the Brits idea just a different group of people were included and all others were excluded. As the French Diplomats said, "The Americans were Aristocrats as much as the British, but the American Aristocrats were easier to work with".

The 2nd Amendment was actually a mixture of the a few things from Britain coming from the Magna Carta, British Bill or Rights, the Brits trying to keep the lid on things leading up to 1775 and the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Under the Magna Carta (1215) , if you look at the weapons that a Farmer or a Merchant might have, you wouldn't find any firearms since they really weren't invented for common use yet. And you wouldn't find swords as they were too expensive. You would find Daggers. You also would not find Bows. If you attacked them on the road, they would defend with a Dagger. The Farmer was actually better armed at home with his farming tools than with a dagger. This is why the Magna Carta specified Arms. When a Farmer or a Merchant left Military Service and did retain a sword whether by sneaking one out or by conquest, he would resmelt it down for something useful as steel was hard found. Hence the original meaning of "Swords to Plowshares". But it was the first time that a restriction was put on the "King" on how many and how much military power he could have at his disposal along with removing the limits to the lower courts such as the Dukes, Barons and the communities.

Under the British Bill of Rights, the King was limited by law on having a standing army without the consent of the Parliament. And Protestants were allowed to maintain arms for defense. But not other faiths. Catholics did not have that right. If you weren't a member of a qualified Church you did not have the right to defensive arms. Nor were there any mention of using them to defend against the State.

Under the Articles of Confederation (1783), the Federal Government was not allowed to have a standing army of any kind. The States had that right. In fact, this was a problem long after the Articles were put to bed with the States all the way to about 1946 where the Governors used the State Guards as their own personal Police Forces. I believe Truman helped to draft something (I wont spend the time looking it up) in 1946 over the Appliance Strikes of the Time that ended using both Federal and National Guards for ending these strikes. There was NO mention of anything like the 2nd amendment in the Articles of Confederation because the Federal Government had no right to have any standing army at all.

There was a rethink on the Federals having standing troops. The limits under the new Constitution of the United States was set at a standing Army of 75,000. It didn't limit the Navy or the Marines who were sea duty only. The Standing Army was weak enough that any two states could raise a larger army than the Federals could raise in the field so the States were stronger. The States had active Organized Militias on tap. The States had Armories that were originally set up under the Articles of Confederation with Arms and ammo on tap so those that did not have guns could have them issued even though the law said they must have one serviceable musket, X balls and X pounds of powder. But that only applied to the active Organized Militia. But anyone was eligible could be "Drafted" if need be and could be equipped such as helpers, apprentices, etc. that normally would not be considered under "Good Standings". And, yes, those of "Color" could fall under this category but only in what would be considered an emergency. Afterwards, they would be disarmed and the weapons and such would be returned to the armory.

The 2nd Amendment was written so that "Men in Good Standings" could be armed. It was actually based heavily on the British Bill of Rights where only Protestants could be armed. It didn't take into consideration what the weapons were since there were so few to choose from. And, like the sword in 1215, only the rich could afford a canon so that was never a consideration. In fact, the Rifle wasn't even considered. They only reason that the "Patriots" had it was that the newly formed Colonial Government was convinced to purchase them for Washington's Army. The Rifle is called the Kentucky Long Rifle but in reality, it was produced in Pennsylvania. After the war, many of the Rifles went into the Armories but many also went to the civilians. But that had zero to do with the 2nd amendment wording. Arms is a generic term that can mean anything from clubs, knives, daggers, swords to rifles.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's break it down into two parts into today's time.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
At the time this was written, the FFs were downright paranoid about another King coming along and setting up a system like King George III had done for the colonies. So they setup a system where the Federal Government was militarily weak and the states were strong. They learned of this folly in 1812, again in 1898 and finally correct that in 1898 and 1916/17 with the National Guard Acts. It's to the point where this part of the 2nd amendment has no meaning anymore. The original intent has been completely lost and it causes more harm than good these days. It's now interpreted by fringe groups to mean that any small group running around in pickle suites playing with guns in the woods are Militias. We outgrew the original meaning when the world got too small to protect us from outside our own borders.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This part is still applicable but it's just not real clear. It's up to interpretation. If I go by the original intent and the reason behind it, those 8% that were affected by it that went to war over the taxation without representation and gun seizures just found out what the Catholics in Ireland were dealing with at the time as well. There were some stark differences in locality and resources why one was successful and the other wasn't but that's for another time and place. But, trust me, it wasn't Canons that had any bearing on the equation. It was personal firearms. Since Firearms were so basic, there was no real difference between what was available to the army and what as available to the farmer. The Musket had been around for a very long time with only slight advances in about a hundred years. And even the Rifle, as much as it is touted, as definite disadvantages when compared to the Musket when used in line firing and mass production of ball ammo and did not have the ability to foist a bayonet until later on in history. It falls under the slight advance category. These and the short versions as wall as the conventional weapons like sabers, etc. were the arms that were used during the time the 2nd amendment was drafted.

You can read into it all you want. But when that second part was written, they had no idea what was coming as early as 1851. You can claim the FFs were visionaries. You can make all kind of claims that they "Knew" that these were possible. In order for you to know, you would have to invent a time machine and go back and ask them. I seriously doubt they had any idea just how fast firearms would progress like they have. When the 2nd amendment was written, they had no idea that we would have to change how we structured out Military and Militia due to defending against outside threats but we had no choice due to the Spanish American War and the "Great War". Same goes for how we treat the types of weapons.

We outgrew the free wheeling let it be way of guns for everyone with no rules. The Entire Eastern Seaboard first figured that out early on. And it was just accepted in the early 19th century. The West finally learned that lesson in 1871 when many western towns and cities started regulating firearms with restrictions more restrictive than even today. But it was done by the lowest from of Government. Usually, the townships and counties. Sometimes the States.

I look at the second part of the 2nd amendment as a restriction on the Federal Government. Unless it affects the United States as a Whole, the States and below have the responsibility to regulate firearms.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Means to me that it restricts the Federal Government and the Feds shall not infringe. The ONLY part of the United States that this will not apply to will be DC where it's not a State or any of the Possessions. It's up to the States to figure out what ARMS can be restricted and what cannot be. The last part should stay the way it is.

 

[westwall]

Any poster here who is anti 2nd amendment for one.

Westwall, to the best of you knowledge, am I anti 2nd amendment? Answer that honestly. And we can get a reasonable discussion going instead of this extremist BS is see going on in here.

Answer a simple question first. What was the Founders purpose for including the 2nd in The Bill of Rights?

You answer mine first. Do you believe that I am against the 2nd amendment? Simple answer. And you can answer it with a simple yes or no. No deflection allowed.

Yes. Based on your responses I believe you are fundamentally anti 2nd amendment. You refuse to acknowledge what the original intent of the 2nd is. Until you acknowledge why the 2nd was written, and agree with that fundamental precept. You are anti 2nd.

Now we have a basis for discussion.

The 2nd was written to prevent what the Brits tried to do to the Patriots before the Revolution. They tried to take the one groups guns while leaving the Tories armed. Then the Brits levied taxes that the "Patriots" (for the lack of a better word) found unacceptable. Taxation without representation leaving them with no way to contest it. That taxation was enforced at gun point. Not a very complicated issue.

By taking or preventing the "Patriots" from having guns, it also removed their ability to protect their homes and family from marauding indians and bandits. So we have an even bigger problem for the rural people and MOST "Patriots" were rural.

For the Revolution, only about 8% of the current population were actually involved on the "Patriots" side actively. The Birth of this nation was done by that few.

Now, the 2nd was the direct result of the first two things I stated. But it was meant for White Men of Good Standings to be armed under the Constitution. It did not include women, those of color, bonded or slaves, and others. It meant Land Owners and Merchants. It was as inclusive as the Brits idea just a different group of people were included and all others were excluded. As the French Diplomats said, "The Americans were Aristocrats as much as the British, but the American Aristocrats were easier to work with".

The 2nd Amendment was actually a mixture of the a few things from Britain coming from the Magna Carta, British Bill or Rights, the Brits trying to keep the lid on things leading up to 1775 and the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Under the Magna Carta (1215) , if you look at the weapons that a Farmer or a Merchant might have, you wouldn't find any firearms since they really weren't invented for common use yet. And you wouldn't find swords as they were too expensive. You would find Daggers. You also would not find Bows. If you attacked them on the road, they would defend with a Dagger. The Farmer was actually better armed at home with his farming tools than with a dagger. This is why the Magna Carta specified Arms. When a Farmer or a Merchant left Military Service and did retain a sword whether by sneaking one out or by conquest, he would resmelt it down for something useful as steel was hard found. Hence the original meaning of "Swords to Plowshares". But it was the first time that a restriction was put on the "King" on how many and how much military power he could have at his disposal along with removing the limits to the lower courts such as the Dukes, Barons and the communities.

Under the British Bill of Rights, the King was limited by law on having a standing army without the consent of the Parliament. And Protestants were allowed to maintain arms for defense. But not other faiths. Catholics did not have that right. If you weren't a member of a qualified Church you did not have the right to defensive arms. Nor were there any mention of using them to defend against the State.

Under the Articles of Confederation (1783), the Federal Government was not allowed to have a standing army of any kind. The States had that right. In fact, this was a problem long after the Articles were put to bed with the States all the way to about 1946 where the Governors used the State Guards as their own personal Police Forces. I believe Truman helped to draft something (I wont spend the time looking it up) in 1946 over the Appliance Strikes of the Time that ended using both Federal and National Guards for ending these strikes. There was NO mention of anything like the 2nd amendment in the Articles of Confederation because the Federal Government had no right to have any standing army at all.

There was a rethink on the Federals having standing troops. The limits under the new Constitution of the United States was set at a standing Army of 75,000. It didn't limit the Navy or the Marines who were sea duty only. The Standing Army was weak enough that any two states could raise a larger army than the Federals could raise in the field so the States were stronger. The States had active Organized Militias on tap. The States had Armories that were originally set up under the Articles of Confederation with Arms and ammo on tap so those that did not have guns could have them issued even though the law said they must have one serviceable musket, X balls and X pounds of powder. But that only applied to the active Organized Militia. But anyone was eligible could be "Drafted" if need be and could be equipped such as helpers, apprentices, etc. that normally would not be considered under "Good Standings". And, yes, those of "Color" could fall under this category but only in what would be considered an emergency. Afterwards, they would be disarmed and the weapons and such would be returned to the armory.

The 2nd Amendment was written so that "Men in Good Standings" could be armed. It was actually based heavily on the British Bill of Rights where only Protestants could be armed. It didn't take into consideration what the weapons were since there were so few to choose from. And, like the sword in 1215, only the rich could afford a canon so that was never a consideration. In fact, the Rifle wasn't even considered. They only reason that the "Patriots" had it was that the newly formed Colonial Government was convinced to purchase them for Washington's Army. The Rifle is called the Kentucky Long Rifle but in reality, it was produced in Pennsylvania. After the war, many of the Rifles went into the Armories but many also went to the civilians. But that had zero to do with the 2nd amendment wording. Arms is a generic term that can mean anything from clubs, knives, daggers, swords to rifles.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's break it down into two parts into today's time.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
At the time this was written, the FFs were downright paranoid about another King coming along and setting up a system like King George III had done for the colonies. So they setup a system where the Federal Government was militarily weak and the states were strong. They learned of this folly in 1812, again in 1898 and finally correct that in 1898 and 1916/17 with the National Guard Acts. It's to the point where this part of the 2nd amendment has no meaning anymore. The original intent has been completely lost and it causes more harm than good these days. It's now interpreted by fringe groups to mean that any small group running around in pickle suites playing with guns in the woods are Militias. We outgrew the original meaning when the world got too small to protect us from outside our own borders.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This part is still applicable but it's just not real clear. It's up to interpretation. If I go by the original intent and the reason behind it, those 8% that were affected by it that went to war over the taxation without representation and gun seizures just found out what the Catholics in Ireland were dealing with at the time as well. There were some stark differences in locality and resources why one was successful and the other wasn't but that's for another time and place. But, trust me, it wasn't Canons that had any bearing on the equation. It was personal firearms. Since Firearms were so basic, there was no real difference between what was available to the army and what as available to the farmer. The Musket had been around for a very long time with only slight advances in about a hundred years. And even the Rifle, as much as it is touted, as definite disadvantages when compared to the Musket when used in line firing and mass production of ball ammo and did not have the ability to foist a bayonet until later on in history. It falls under the slight advance category. These and the short versions as wall as the conventional weapons like sabers, etc. were the arms that were used during the time the 2nd amendment was drafted.

You can read into it all you want. But when that second part was written, they had no idea what was coming as early as 1851. You can claim the FFs were visionaries. You can make all kind of claims that they "Knew" that these were possible. In order for you to know, you would have to invent a time machine and go back and ask them. I seriously doubt they had any idea just how fast firearms would progress like they have. When the 2nd amendment was written, they had no idea that we would have to change how we structured out Military and Militia due to defending against outside threats but we had no choice due to the Spanish American War and the "Great War". Same goes for how we treat the types of weapons.

We outgrew the free wheeling let it be way of guns for everyone with no rules. The Entire Eastern Seaboard first figured that out early on. And it was just accepted in the early 19th century. The West finally learned that lesson in 1871 when many western towns and cities started regulating firearms with restrictions more restrictive than even today. But it was done by the lowest from of Government. Usually, the townships and counties. Sometimes the States.

I look at the second part of the 2nd amendment as a restriction on the Federal Government. Unless it affects the United States as a Whole, the States and below have the responsibility to regulate firearms.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Means to me that it restricts the Federal Government and the Feds shall not infringe. The ONLY part of the United States that this will not apply to will be DC where it's not a State or any of the Possessions. It's up to the States to figure out what ARMS can be restricted and what cannot be. The last part should stay the way it is.

According to the Founders, the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do, and one, final, option. That final option is the 2nd Amendment. It has one purpose, to ensure that the people of this country have the means necessary to remove an illigitimate government.

That's it. It is FOR revolution.