Better than burning down the capitol and assaulting police officers
Nah, it’s not! Haven’t you ever broken stuff, crapped on the floor, burned one where you shouldn’t have to release stress? Should try it sometime. Maybe go to one of those smash em up places? Plus, 2 alleged “cry sessions” need to be investigated because you know, nothing else is happening in the affairs of state.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., took aim at Secretary of State Antony Blinken after it was reported that the State Department held therapy sessions for employees who were upset by President-elect Trump’s election victory.
"I am concerned that the Department is catering to federal employees who are personally devastated by the normal functioning of American democracy through the provision of government-funded mental health counseling because Kamala Harris was not elected President of the United States," Issa said in a letter to Blinken last week.
The letter comes after a Free Beacon report earlier this month that detailed two alleged therapy sessions that were held at the State Department after Trump’s victory, with sources telling the outlet that one such instance amounted to an information "cry session."
In another instance, an email went out to agency employees and touted a separate "insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times" after Trump’s victory, according to the report.
"Change is a constant in our lives, but it can often bring about stress and uncertainty," the email said. "Join us for an insightful webinar where we delve into effective stress management techniques to help you navigate these challenging times. This session will provide tips and practical strategies for managing stress and maintaining your well being."
In his letter to Blinken, Issa argued that the reported sessions were "disturbing" and that "nonpartisan government officials" should not be suffering a "personal meltdown over the result of a free and fair election."
While the Republican lawmaker acknowledged that the mental health of the agency’s employees was important, he questioned the use of taxpayer dollars to counsel those upset about the election, demanding answers on how many sessions have been conducted, how many more are planned, and how much the sessions are costing the department.
Issa also raised fears that the sessions could also call into question the willingness of some of the State Department's employees to carry out Trump’s new vision for the agency.
"The mere fact that the Department is hosting these sessions raises significant questions about the willingness of its personnel to implement the lawful policy priorities that the American people elected President Trump to pursue and implement," the letter said. "The Trump Administration has a mandate for wholesale change in the foreign policy arena, and if foreign service officers cannot follow through on the American people’s preferences, they should resign and seek a political appointment in the next Democrat administration."
The State Department did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.
Jesus Christ, Shecky, where yaat?? I'm taking heavy artillery here been waiting on reinforcements all day.
While I truly do not like anything about 47, I have to say I don't hate you for your position, Shecky. I know what you and teske and others take in this place and its no way to go forward. We are fellow Americans, it's time to tone down the rhetoric. I will apologize on behalf of the many level headed Democrats out here for the despicable treatment you all have face in wake of your victory. You have the right to enjoy your victory. It is part of the process. America will remain the Greatest, as always before, and for the next 4 years, and beyond.
Another intuitive remark/post from a Canadian. Thank you for your valuable input.
1. I'm a dual citizen. Even if I weren't, I still wouldn't require your permission to post here. If you don't like what I have to say, block me 2. I treat others with the respect they show on here, that's why I have the displeasure of writing to you directly for the first time.
Have a day.
No one said you needed permission. Let’s not get sensitive and dramatic, Ben. I hope you are coping well. Take care of yourself.
Complaining on a message board about politics = being dramatic
Storming the capitol to prevent a peaceful transfer of power = appropriate behavior
This clarification has been helpful for many of us on planet Earth.
Are you implying these are my beliefs? Yet another one...
I am definitely implying that.
Do you denounce the civilians who stormed the Capitol? Do you think it was justified? Do you think they should have been jailed?
No response?
Sorry, I missed your follow up initially. You are only one of a handful who decided to attack me all day. My apologies, your answers have been provided.
You don’t answer. I definitely know why.
Your answers are 3 posts up. Easy on the trigger finger. I know it's difficult.
You can answer. I can choose not to believe you. You don’t seem like the honorable type.
You seem like the type who just likes to argue.
Then what would like me to do?
I don't seem like the honorable type. Interesting.
Well, considering you sought me out and have proceeded to question me, and then tell me you don't believe me when I answer your questions, you seem like the type who just wants to argue, sir. Can you see where that might come off that way?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
please let me know the next time the “responsible” gun owners muster on the town green, will ya?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
As it pertains to the original question, all non-trump voters will have the right to form Militias and defend their right to a free state.
Do we hear how ridiculous this is? Come on people.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
Nothing. Mad Max will just vilify you for owning a firearm I'm sure.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
Nothing. Mad Max will just vilify you for owning a firearm I'm sure.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
Do you though?
No to daily carry but yes to semi-auto.
Why? When or why do you conceal carry and why do you own a semi-automatic rifle?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
Do you though?
No to daily carry but yes to semi-auto.
Why? When or why do you conceal carry and why do you own a semi-automatic rifle?
I live in a small city. It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. As a friend told me quite recently you use your small gun to get to your big gun. My main reason for owning guns is to protect my family.
Things were different then
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,285
I don't have much to add here but I have to say, man, rather than the subject at hand, there are one or two people who are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much attention here, . If that's you, it's not all about you, ya know?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I don't have much to add here but I have to say, man, rather than the subject at hand, there are one or two people who are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much attention here, . If that's you, it's not all about you, ya know?
Come on girl, you're pretty too.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,285
I don't have much to add here but I have to say, man, rather than the subject at hand, there are one or two people who are getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much attention here, . If that's you, it's not all about you, ya know?
Come on girl, you're pretty too.
Pucker up, baby.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Another intuitive remark/post from a Canadian. Thank you for your valuable input.
1. I'm a dual citizen. Even if I weren't, I still wouldn't require your permission to post here. If you don't like what I have to say, block me 2. I treat others with the respect they show on here, that's why I have the displeasure of writing to you directly for the first time.
Have a day.
No one said you needed permission. Let’s not get sensitive and dramatic, Ben. I hope you are coping well. Take care of yourself.
Complaining on a message board about politics = being dramatic
Storming the capitol to prevent a peaceful transfer of power = appropriate behavior
This clarification has been helpful for many of us on planet Earth.
Are you implying these are my beliefs? Yet another one...
What is your take on 1/6 then?
Good talk, GoBeavers. Is there anything else I can help you with?
I’m pretty adept at being a smart ass on the internet, too, but I usually wait until someone dishes it out first.
Do you think the events around 1/6 (Trump’s scheme to undermine the election, etc) and other conscious attempts by him to undermine trust in democratic systems and institutions will have a long lasting effect, or do you think it returns to pre-Trump levels after he’s gone?
Back in the 80s, I worked with a woman (who happened to be black). We were talking about a mutual friend. She said she thought this friend smoked to much weed. I knew she also liked to imbibe in a little of the green herself, so I replied, "Isn't that a bit like the black calling the kettle pot?" She just totally cracked up when I said that. Still puts a big old smile on my face,
Alright, I'm outta here. Got some sun breaks to get out and enjoy before tomorrow's next storm rolls in. Y'all be kind (-Illona Anne Cogswater)
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
The state being free to maintain its militia. Several southern founders wanted militias to be maintained in order to continue to use them to squash out slave rebellions, so Madison put tye 2A in there as a compromise to get them on board.
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
Do you though?
No to daily carry but yes to semi-auto.
Why? When or why do you conceal carry and why do you own a semi-automatic rifle?
I live in a small city. It's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. As a friend told me quite recently you use your small gun to get to your big gun. My main reason for owning guns is to protect my family.
Is the big gun the appropriate defensive firearm inside your house? Would a shotgun be better or more appropriate? And if you need a handgun to get to your big gun, seems you’ve got a major issue happening, yes/no?
In her letter yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote:
"Gaetz’s withdrawal turns attention to Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth.... Jonathan Chait of The Atlantic
did a deep dive into Hegseth’s recent books and concluded that Hegseth
“considers himself to be at war with basically everybody to Trump’s
left, and it is by no means clear that he means war
metaphorically.” Hegseth’s books suggest he thinks that everything that
does not support the MAGA worldview is “Marxist,” including voters
choosing Democrats at the voting booth. He calls for the “categorical
defeat of the Left” and says that without its “utter annihilation,”
“America cannot, and will not, survive.”
So my question for our MAGA member here is this: Are you OK with the idea of having the U.S. military to literally (not metaphorically) come gunning for those who did not vote for Trump?
This question, in itself acknowledges another issue that we can't seem to find any common ground on.
Well regulated...
You're almost there. 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. We can't just pick two words and say that supports our view. Let's examine being necessary to the security of a free state as it pertains to the original question.
Yeah you ignore the well regulated part...
How so? I can carry concealed in my state. I can own a semi-automatic rifle. I don't have a criminal record. What am I doing that ignores the regulations?
The original well regulated meant that you participate in training once or twice a year and that you’re prepared to fight in a war when called in by your militia leader. Is this happening?
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If so then I don’t even know how anyone is going to be genuinely heard around here. It’s almost embarrassing.
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
While I truly do not like anything about 47, I have to say I don't hate you for your position, Shecky. I know what you and teske and others take in this place and its no way to go forward. We are fellow Americans, it's time to tone down the rhetoric. I will apologize on behalf of the many level headed Democrats out here for the despicable treatment you all have face in wake of your victory. You have the right to enjoy your victory. It is part of the process. America will remain the Greatest, as always before, and for the next 4 years, and beyond.
Almost?
I don't seem like the honorable type. Interesting.
Well, considering you sought me out and have proceeded to question me, and then tell me you don't believe me when I answer your questions, you seem like the type who just wants to argue, sir. Can you see where that might come off that way?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Do we hear how ridiculous this is? Come on people.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Pucker up, baby.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
scheme to undermine the election, etc) and other conscious attempts by him to undermine trust in democratic systems and institutions will have a long lasting effect, or do you think it returns to pre-Trump levels after he’s gone?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©