|
|
Post by Haighus on Jul 14, 2024 17:10:11 GMT -5
Is the "standing up against tyranny" bit actually written explicitly in the Constitution, or is it merely background context for the bits that are like the 2nd Amendment?
If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be a viable legal defense unless the Supreme Court personally agreed with your interpretation and decided that counted on your day in court. Because apparently they can base their decision on whatever they feel like and the only thing that can stop them is a different Supreme Court considering the same question in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Jul 14, 2024 17:45:07 GMT -5
Is the "standing up against tyranny" bit actually written explicitly in the Constitution, or is it merely background context for the bits that are like the 2nd Amendment? If it is the latter, then it wouldn't be a viable legal defense unless the Supreme Court personally agreed with your interpretation and decided that counted on your day in court. Because apparently they can base their decision on whatever they feel like and the only thing that can stop them is a different Supreme Court considering the same question in the future. It has the words "being necessary to the security of a free State", which is where the thought comes from of using weapons against the state if the state is no longer free. Of course, that again raises the question of whose definition of "free" you are using. I doubt the majority of 2nd amendment warriors will be standing beside LGBTQ+, or people of colour, if they decide that they are not "free" due to the prejudices they face and turn to violence in order to secure their freedom. We can even point to the California gun control law passed by Reagan, and supported by the NRA, which was intended to disarm the Black Panthers for evidence of that. |
|
Peregrine
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 509
Member is Online
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 14, 2024 17:55:09 GMT -5
How that fits with murder being a crime I'm not sure. It's one of those "history is written by the winners" things. If you commit political violence and win you're the heroic freedom fighters overthrowing tyranny. If you commit political violence and lose you're the terrorists and traitors murdering innocents for your lunatic "cause". |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 14, 2024 18:49:11 GMT -5
Is the "standing up against tyranny" bit actually written explicitly in the Constitution, or is it merely background context for the bits that are like the 2nd Amendment?
I've seen the tyranny claim a lot, and it seems like it's come from an Office of Justice paper about why gun bans would result in tyranny:
The 2A itself just says:
Could a lone Militia decide that Trump was a risk to the security of a free State? It seems plausible.
I do wonder if we'll see any calls for gun controls here, beyond the inevitable one banning Dems/lefties/commies/wokes from having guns, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 14, 2024 18:56:15 GMT -5
I've seen a few claims mentioning "sources" that Trump was injured by glass shrapnel from a teleprompter, and not a bullet. That seems to fit since he doesn't seem to move at all after being hit. I'd assume a bullet even glancing on his ear (which would require him looking almost straight at the shooter) would have at least pulled his head round a bit.
I wonder if he'll lie about that too. It sounds a lot more heroic to be hit with a bullet than some glass.
|
|
Peregrine
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 509
Member is Online
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 14, 2024 19:43:50 GMT -5
I've seen a few claims mentioning "sources" that Trump was injured by glass shrapnel from a teleprompter, and not a bullet. That seems to fit since he doesn't seem to move at all after being hit. I'd assume a bullet even glancing on his ear (which would require him looking almost straight at the shooter) would have at least pulled his head round a bit. I wonder if he'll lie about that too. It sounds a lot more heroic to be hit with a bullet than some glass. It's false. We have a photo of the bullet in flight. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 15, 2024 7:58:14 GMT -5
I've seen a few claims mentioning "sources" that Trump was injured by glass shrapnel from a teleprompter, and not a bullet. That seems to fit since he doesn't seem to move at all after being hit. I'd assume a bullet even glancing on his ear (which would require him looking almost straight at the shooter) would have at least pulled his head round a bit. I wonder if he'll lie about that too. It sounds a lot more heroic to be hit with a bullet than some glass. Getting hit by a bullet and throwing your body in circles is a work of fiction. Yes, it looks good in movies, but it doesn't happen. The speed of the bullet nipping the corner of your ear wouldn't transfer jack shit for energy. A gallon milk jug filled with water weighs about as much as a human head. The plastic the jug is made of is significantly tougher than the soft flesh of your ear. Shoot through the top of the jug, above the water line, and you'll be scratching your head on if you ever hit it at all. It's barely enough to disturb the water. I also doubt the "glass" theory. He had his head turned to the right when he was hit, with that side of his head pointed towards the crowd behind him. Any glass would have made a mid-air U-turn around his head in a way that would have had the Warren Commission scoffing. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Jul 15, 2024 9:41:55 GMT -5
An impact with enough inertia to the peripheral of a body should make it spin, but I think it was too small calibre and too glancing a contact to do anything. I'm expecting that it'll be a very shallow wound.
I wasn't even expecting him to spin, but I thought his head would have at least twitched a bit.
But then I've never shot anyone in the ear, so I don't know 
Edit: I forgot that to move his head at all it'd need to hit some resistance, which an ear wouldn't provide.
I've seen a few claims mentioning "sources" that Trump was injured by glass shrapnel from a teleprompter, and not a bullet. That seems to fit since he doesn't seem to move at all after being hit. I'd assume a bullet even glancing on his ear (which would require him looking almost straight at the shooter) would have at least pulled his head round a bit. I wonder if he'll lie about that too. It sounds a lot more heroic to be hit with a bullet than some glass. It's false. We have a photo of the bullet in flight. I'd seen that, it's an incredible photo but from the angle you can't tell if it hits or not. I guess I was expecting some blood spray but maybe it's too fast / minimal of a contact. I've seen a video from behind Trump and the teleprompter is unharmed, so it definitely looks like the bullet hit him. |
|
|
|
Post by crispy78 on Jul 15, 2024 10:27:17 GMT -5
Not sure it really makes a difference whether his ear got nicked by a flying bit of metal or a flying bit of glass.
Sod's law really, that someone actually takes a pop at Trump and it's the guy who wasn't allowed to join his school rifle club because he was shit at shooting...
|
|
|
|
Post by easye on Jul 15, 2024 12:35:51 GMT -5
The supposed "ACTBlue" donation made by Crooks was actually a 69-year old of the same name in PA. It was not the shooter. So far, his only political connections we know about are being a registered Republican.
We still have no idea of his actual motives.
|
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Jul 15, 2024 12:59:40 GMT -5
The supposed "ACTBlue" donation made by Crooks was actually a 69-year old of the same name in PA. It was not the shooter. So far, his only political connections we know about are being a registered Republican. We still have no idea of his actual motives. I’ve seen one reference to that other guy, but I’ve read other articles that say the donation came from the shooters address, so not sure on it yet. |
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 663
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 15, 2024 16:35:14 GMT -5
So, looking at pictures of the shooter, he is not a pretty guy. Like, being runner up to Corky Thatcher in a beauty pageant kind of fugly. Skinnier arms than an anorexic housecat.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
|
Post by skyth on Jul 15, 2024 16:37:08 GMT -5
And that matters why?
|
|
Peregrine
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 509
Member is Online
|
Post by Peregrine on Jul 15, 2024 18:34:10 GMT -5
Because it explains why a republican would want to kill the leader of their cult. He lusted after Trump, he made his move, Trump rejected him because he's ugly and at least five years too old, and the only thing left was murder-suicide.
Or it's just pointless spam. Shrug.
|
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Jul 16, 2024 2:14:13 GMT -5
Pretty = mentally ill, ugly = psychopath. Those are the rules. |
|
