Trump Found Guilty

Jun 10, 2024 #SupremeCourt #Alito #flags - MSNBC

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s lack of impartiality has been revealed in a secret recording attained by Lauren Windsor of The Undercurrent. Plus, an additional recording of his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, reveals her thoughts on flying right-wing flags outside of their homes. Windsor joins Joy Reid on the TV debut of her exclusive undercover audio of Martha-Ann Alito, and how she recorded Samuel Alito’s bombshell statements.


Something wrong with your keyboard?

Nah, just didn’t see a need to add anything.

Again, none of that is illegal. Most of that could apply to most politicians. We can do nothing except vote for more of the same.

Too bad it’s not clear Trump incited anything.

Since those groups aren’t militias, he’s in the clear.

If they are not a “well regulated militia” then they don’t have the right to own guns.

1 Like

They don’t even have the right to attempt to overthrow the government like they did.

Apparently you don’t know or care much about our legal codes, there are laws that relate to all that stuff.

Here’s an interesting historic aside,

and now,

With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about and sound like a deluded dotard supporter. I hope you don’t follow the others over the cliff.

Oh, it’s clear. Even the insurrectionists said they thought that they were following orders.

Who’s breaking laws?

:us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us: :us:

Jun 10, 2024

Kenneth Chesebro, James Troupis and Michael Roman ( :wink: Oh but that’s not trump, what’s it got to do with him :rofl: :neutral_face: ) were each charged in Wisconsin with a single felony count of forgery in connection to a 2020 fake electors scheme. The trio was allegedly involved in an attempt to subvert Wisconsin’s presidential election results and falsely declare Donald Trump the winner of the state’s 10 electoral votes.

Read more: -Ex-Trump Campaign Attorney Chesebro, Two Others Charged in Wisconsin Fake Elector Scheme:… -
Subscribe to our newsletters:… -

Nothing is going to remain the same.

1 Like

They were asking for it. The system still works.

By that logic the rest of legal gun owners are a militia as well.

Now what happens? You can see how that argument falls apart.

Yet for some reason those laws are just not doing what you want them to do.

I could say almost the same to you. The fact that some of the 1/6 crowd belonged to groups like Oath Keepers does not mean those groups are Trump’s private mercenary forces. Nor does the government think so.

:roll_eyes: They are his minions. They will do anything he says, which makes him guilty of inciting the overthrow of the government.

1 Like

Yes, but that refers to early days , where farmers were also considered militia.

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time. During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony’s rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. The year before … See more

The problem is that in those days guns were single shot black powder muskets that took 30 sec to load by an experienced sharp-shooter, as compared to the new semi-automatic rifles that can deliver 45 rounds per minute (60 seconds).

On fully automatic mode, an AR-15 can fire around 700 to 950 rounds per minute.

Hence the wisdom by several states to outlaw fully automatic AR15 for civilian use.
They have no value other than strictly military purpose.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that completely ban the possession of automatic/assault firearms. These bans are in place in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
Automatic Weapons Legality by State 2024

I think he’s challenging your logic of what or who is a militia now. If you say Trump called up his militia, but they are random gun owners, then I could be called a militia, with my collector gun.

Or, if I’m not a militia, then I can’t keep my gun

Here is the modern definition of militia

A militia (/mɪˈlɪʃə/)[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional and/or part-time soldiers; citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel; or, historically, to members of a warrior-nobility class (e.g. knights or samurai).

When acting independently militias are generally unable to hold ground against regular forces; militias commonly support regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or conducting irregular warfare, instead of undertaking offensive campaigns by themselves. Local civilian laws often limit militias to serve only in their home region, and to serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns. Militias may also, however, serve as a pool of available manpower for regular forces to draw from, particularly in emergencies.

Beginning in the late 20th century, some militias (in particular officially recognized and sanctioned militias of a government) act as professional forces, while still being “part-time” or “on-call” organizations. For instance, the members of United States National Guard units are considered professional soldiers, as they are trained to the same standards that their “full-time” (active duty) counterparts are.[2]

Militias thus can be either military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the contexts in which the term “militia” can apply include:

forces engaged in a defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws,[3]
the entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state available to be called to arms a subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up a subset of these who actually respond to a call-up regardless of legal obligation a private (non-governmental) force not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by a government an irregular armed force that enables its leader to exercise military, economic, or political control over a subnational territory within a sovereign state in Russia and some countries of the former Soviet Union, an official reserve army composed of citizen soldiers known as the militsiya. Under the Soviet Union, and until 2011, militsiya (militia) was the title given to the regular civil police force.
a select militia composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4]
maritime militias composed of fishermen and other participants of the marine industry which are organized and sanctioned by a state to enforce its maritime boundaries.[5]
Militia - Wikipedia

In any case, I believe the key-word always should be “well-regulated”

On review. I’m seeing the contradiction is coming from two people. So, can’t ask one person to reconcile it.


They don’t look regulated to me, but under current law, their gun ownership is legal. Now, don’t forget, I have a lot of problems with the current gun laws.

We had a little discussion on that this week

The definitions have not changed in any meaningful way.

Supreme Court dealt with this not long ago.

This could be complicated even further by focusing on the fact that some of the “insurrectionists” were active duty military and even more were veterans. Therefore, a well regulated militia in every sense.

Au contraire, … if these individuals are "serving " an “unregulated militia”, they are not “well regulated”, and are either or both “awol” and/or “insurrectionist”!

1 Like