Concerning the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), in the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." 

Also,

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

And,

"[T]he conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

 Thus, the Second Amendment was found to not apply to machine guns.

This is basically what rational liberals argue. They do not argue for the confiscation of all firearms. That would not only be silly, but unworkable. Visions of federal or U.N. soldiers going around collecting everyone's arms are pure fantasy and scaremongering. What they ask for is reasonable protections to keep guns out of the hands of those people who should not have them, protections which would include licensing and background checks (no gun show loophole), and restrictions on the owning of weapons of mass murder. The Second Amendment certainly does not give the right to own missiles or bioweapons. States are also given leeway to levy laws such as those concerning the carrying of concealed weapons and concerning the commercial sale of weapons.

To a Climate Change Skeptic and Greta Thunberg Doubter

Does this mean you haven't followed the science regarding CO2 and other greenhouse gases? We "think" it may be because of CO2? How about, "It's just a theory." Just like the theory of gravity; go ahead and jump off a building to test it.

Or that maybe you agree with the less than 1% of climatologists who think we probably don't have to worry about Climate Change? And do you think science hasn't made any progress in 50 years?

Do you remember when LA used to have warnings about when smog was at dangerous levels? Do you remember rivers catching on fire? The Ozone Hole? Toxic waste sites? Lead contamination? The wholesale dumping of manufacturing waste into our waterways? How about dangerous levels of contamination in our food products? Or the Pacific Gyre? Or the hundreds of oil pipeline leaks? We have science deniers and people who call regulations "job-killing" in our government. Go ahead and piss on environmental regulations; your children will thank you. Go ahead and allow the screwing of customers and consumers by repealing laws concerning responsibility and fairness. Hell, let's go with discrimination against gays and transgenders and blacks and browns and short people and the handicapped and the sick and vulnerable; it's just business.

Do you realize that it was not the scientific community that was worried about an ice age? They were worried about global warming due to greenhouse gases. The ice age predictions in the '70s were mostly media hype over one scientific paper. Look it up.

As for the Electoral College: There is a certain dark irony to the fact that a system designed to prevent the people from choosing an unqualified demagogue has resulted in the election of an unqualified demagogue not chosen by the people. But it is not about the past election. It is about future elections. Bush v. Gore - Gore won the popular vote. And at least three other prior elections were also lost by the popular vote winners. At least 10 states have enacted procedures that give their state's electoral votes to the winner of the popular election. So it is not a useless discussion.

As for impeachment, we are well aware that the Senate will probably not hold the impeachment trial and would certainly not convict Trump if they did have the trial. But impeachment proceedings give additional investigatory powers and the ability to provide clarity and transparency to the many crimes and lies of the president.

If you haven't noticed, the imPOTUS is a pathological liar and a narcissist and a despot admirer, and he clearly has anger issues and no filter. He constantly makes things up and tries to make everything about him, and he has expressed open admiration for many of today's tyrants and dictators. He enables and encourages the worst in people and nominates those who would destroy the departments they would head.

Most of the time Trump just sounds like the kid giving a book report on something he never read. He does not know what he does not know. If he finds something complex, he will lament that nobody knew how complex it was. He likes to do the unexpected just to try and show how smart he is, assuming he even knows what the expected action is. He took responsibility for the government shutdown and then blamed it on the Democrats. He promises everything and delivers nothing. Tax cuts for the rich? Gutting health care coverage? Eliminating requirements for fiduciary responsibilities? His passion is trashing anything Obama accomplished as if that would be a good thing.

We are sorry you don't get just why Greta resonates with liberals who care for our planet and our future. Her words and her attitude express what many of us feel in the face of hypocrisy and denial and greed. The left is mostly not using her (the media certainly is); they are applauding her. As for her reaction to President Trump, her expression seems to be her usual one. I don't think it was a response to the presence of Trump, though many would like to think so.