ADreamOfLiberty

Since these men are war criminals who invaded a peaceful country, and have probably committed murder in doing so, this outcome wouldn't be unjust.

people reacting to unprecedented circumstances

They constantly slander anyone who disagrees with them as

I’m asking everyone here about the assassination:

Questions:

Was it justified? If so, how and why.

Will there be more?

Does it bother you that Kamala or Walz did not denounce it?

Why would Indians not worship Kamala, is it because Kamala is no longer an Indian?

What's wrong with being wrong?

Right and wrong are subjective, just as logic is subjective. But I dont know whats wrong with being wrong. I am simply never wrong so I dont know how it feels like.

So the deep state is anyone in or affiliated with government who supports Harris.

Nine high-ranking former national security and military officials who signed a letter Sunday endorsing Vice President Harris’ run for the Oval Office also signed a letter nearly four years ago dismissing Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop as Russian disinformation ahead of the 2020 election, Fox News Digital found.

For me, I use anarchy to mean “no laws and no ruling body whatsoever” whereas government is anything else.

So I think what you mean by a lack of government just means power split equally between all citizens

https://youtu.be/_XQOqP7yIM0

Oh, I think I get what you’re saying now. I suppose I meant to say anarchy or any form of government. In that case, are you advocating for some kind of true, complete democracy as opposed to a republic?

are you advocating for some kind of true, complete democracy as opposed to a republic?

Well sure, in theory anarchy is perfect,  but we all know that human beings aren’t mature enough to handle it.

Trump is a complete ignoramus who doesn't understand how anything works so his ideas and impulses are often dangerous

The 2nd amendment implies people have a right to secure a free state using arms individually. Your error before was conflating this right with the right to do anything you want just because you believe you're securing a free state using your arms.

It is a very good point, but the problem I pointed out at the end of my last post still remains. Unlike the immunity example you cited or any other for that matter, this individual right is one that is granted against the state itself. So while you can make a moral argument against it, there is no way to resolve this conflict without constitutionally empowering the state to decide whether force against itself is legitimate.

Trump's lawyers while arguing about immunity (and they're stuck in the conceptual sinkhole too) have basically said that POTUS has the right to do whatever he thinks the constitution charges him to do as opposed to "he has the right to do what the constitution actuallycharges him to do, err on his interpretation when doubt is reasonable".

Great, so when Trump called up Georgia and told them to find 11,780 votes, the argument that he thought the election was stolen and he was carrying out his official duty to rectify it is not a defense, right?

“well then what does work?”, which I suppose is the whole point of the book.

my point is that Israel having nukes didn’t prevent October 7 any more than the US having nukes prevented 9/11.

Nukes deter nukes

Al Qaida was overseas (or so we thought) until September 11, 2001.

For what it’s worth, Trump asked General Keane to be his SecDef.

My take is just that he shows how rule by the smart often descends into unjust rule

I think he was trying to tell us that if the smart people of the world inherently have a right to rule, then it must also come with a duty to rule fairly and equally. 

Unfortunately, DoD R&D and procurement systems were built around a closed network ofdefense-funded organizations and traditional defense companies.2

In 2018, the Defense Innovation Board noted that DoD does not have an innovation problem, it has an innovation adoptionproblem.6

Overcoming the cultural and institutional barriers to innovation at speed and scale is a criticalrequirement for achieving the goals of the NDS

DoD must confront the institutional processes and incentives that favor continuing existingprograms, such as long planning cycles, overly specific requirements, inflexible budget lines,long-standing relationships with providers, proprietary technology, familiarity in using existingequipment, political support, ostensibly less risk of schedule delays and cost overruns, and fearsthat replacing existing programs will lead to operational gaps.

The U.S. security clearance system also impedes innovation by delaying nontraditionaldefense companies in conducting work with warfighting applications. Recent reforms havereduced the average time to process an application for a security clearance

The report was not made by the DoD.

Agree or disagree with the conclusions of the report, I’m mainly saying that it should be part of the national conversation.

Remember when France was invaded and is now occupied? Oh wait that hasn't happened since they got nukes

You don’t think Israel has nukes?

Everyone is focused on high prices, but we need to be mindful of the very high price of war and preventing it.

And my point is that you cannot enshrine a right to each individual citing a responsibility that the individual does not have the right to act upon.

I am starting to believe that you are a controlled opposition.

You would be happy if they decided in groups of 60 or more?

I'm not the one cheering the supreme court's interpretation.

2nd amendment says each individual has the right to keep and bear arms. The first part of the sentence gives the most important reason, presumably so no future government would be tempted to try and limit the definition of 'arms' to...

It doesn't say or imply that. It explicitly states that the reason is to ensure the security of a free state. That's a very wide umbrella

and like I've said, since the constitution vests that responsibility to "the people" then it follows that it's up to the people to determine how to accomplish this.

I think this is extremely vague which is problematic

if you then determine that "the people" is referring to the individual citizenry, then you can't claim the individual citizenry is wrong when they see a political figure as a threat and decide to nullify it.

Of course, every bit as ridiculous as the supreme court deciding that the President is entitled to full immunity for any crimes he commits through his government agencies

I find it extremely hard to believe that not a single person decided to assassinate a politician that they hated because of "cultural differences".

I'm just saying that it's hard for me to believe with nothing supporting it.

Your whole thing about people being assassinated by other methods is exactly my point.

But my point still remains that political assassinations just didn't happen with the weapons used at the time. 

Targeting officers during war time is nowhere near assassinating a president.

You're assuming both parties are doing it correctly.

No, I'm assuming both parties are comprised of human beings.

More fundamentally what is "a solution" supposed to mean in this sentence?

A mutually accepted resolution

That's your whole problem; you don't respect any resolution you disagree with as legitimate.

There will always be disagreement within a society, that's not avoidable.

If people do not accept the outcomes they disagree with we wouldn't have one.

In those days, you couldn’t assassinate someone with a musket

I think if you gave any founding father an AR15 they would at least start to rethink the 2nd amendment.