You can lie even when you tell nothing but facts. Lies by omission are one example that can frame a narrative despite reality. For example: A historical black church was burned in Mississippi before the election and spray painted with "Vote Trump". 100% true. Reality: A historical black church was burned in Mississippi before the election and spray painted with "Vote Trump" carried out by a black member of said church. Care to take a guess what narrative was spun from the first statement? Hint: racists support Trump.
The media is there to keep politicians at least a little bit honest.
And what happens when the media is dishonest? This is what I don't think you understand that is very important. The media does not have an authority on the truth anymore than the government. If you are surrounded by liars how do you know what is in your best interests if they all want to sell you a dollar?
free to tell the most ridiculous and often petty lies.
Yes. Everyone is free to tell the most ridiculous and often petty lies. That is the point. No one has a monopoly on the truth. That is why Trump can do nothing to silence journalists. Journalists can be "silenced" by losing all credibility that has nothing to do with Trump.
media is there to keep politicians at least a little bit honest.
Honestly, that is the voters job. It should be the medias job to keep the electorate informed but sometimes the media fail at that. Who is the electorate supposed to listen to if the media's integrity has been compromised?
It was reported as news outside of op-ed as I said in my previous comment. If it was only op-ed I wouldn't have mentioned it. That link is the first one I grabbed from google was op-ed because I am lazy. Sue me. This was almost 10 years ago.
jumbling up opinion and journalism
Yes, and the point is that this has been happening for a long time before Trump. The point you seem to be missing from my first comment is "lies of omission coupled with extreme political correct speech make it infuriating to be on the contrary narrative of mainstream media".
How does that change the fact that the US accepts more immigrants and refugees than any other country?
When UAE and Qatar are at the top of your list then I am not concerned about being ranked low. Just because they can exploit immigrants doesn't mean it is an immigrant friendly nation. Gratz, slavery is a live and well and in places like Qatar hidden behind a facade of immigration.
I am with you right up til "Trump is trying to subvert that". He is pushing a different narrative. Big deal. That is not subversion. The press is not being hamstrung by the government. The press is not losing relevance because of the government. The press is not perceived as dishonest because of the government. The government didn't popularize the term "fake news" or "post-truth politics". The press are not being oppressed or their rights taken away by the government. The 1st amendment is still alive and strong and just like the rest of US history will allow anyone to say anything about the government. You have a very loose and broad term for "subvert" if you think "different narrative" is subversion of journalism and essentially, as you put it, democracy itself. Hyperbole much??
at worst that you should only believe what Trump writes on his Twitter feed.
Wow. Someone wants me to believe them over someone else. Why should I believe you?
Do you honestly believe that one side is honest? If so I have a bridge to sell you. All I need is to know which side you stand and frame the "sale" accordingly. People, governments, and institutions since the dawn of written word have been trying to convince you of something. Why is it now all the sudden an issue?
Trump wants to do it directly,
I honestly don't see an issue with this. He doesn't have a monopoly on it and what he says is no longer filtered with the bias of the journalists. The journalists can still do their job and so it is a win for the consumer of information because they can see what Trump is saying without the gatekeepers of information to filter his words in whatever narrative is being pushed. You can still get that narrative and that is what is important but I don't see how people getting what Trump says directly from Trump is bad.
they are forced to comment on Trump rather than what they want to talk about.
Yea, that whole "gatekeeper of information" and their filter. No one is forcing anyone to do anything except for the journalists forcing guests to comment on tweets. I see.
. Somehow silence or control the press so that they cannot be criticized,
ROFL... No one is being silenced. Everyone can still criticize the government and Trump. The press is losing viewership by their own doing and nothing Trump could do can silence them more then how they silence themselves by becoming irrelevant in the marketplace of ideas.
I should be alarmed that the press and government are at odds in the US? Relieved that the press is "strong enough"? LOL, I am relieved that the US values free speech to the point that a ministry of truth, from either government or media is laughable.
You are scared of someone saying something contrary to what CNN/NYTimes says. Grow up. CNN/NYTimes are not authorities on truth anymore than the government. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will realize that the government and media at odds is a good thing in a free and democratic society.
Yes, but that was a narrative that was circulating in 2008. That was just one of the first google links I chose because I am lazy. One distinct memory I had of "McCain == racism" in 2008 I remember was the day after the election on CNN stating "there are not enough racists to beat Obama" and framed all McCain voters as racist. It was being paraded around for a while that against Obama == racist because he black.
That article maybe an op-ed but that narrative for sure was in the news being reported as fact during the 2008 general election.
Honestly, that is how I talk sometimes. See some report and in conversation make a generic statement about it that isn't 100% correct or contextual for the sake of brevity.
I don't get it. You say "reinterpret" but all I see is context. The context being "a segment on FNC b/w Tucker Carlson and Ami Horowitz" and "immigrants and rape/murder" rates and the under-reporting of those events that we have seen. For example, during the new years rape fiasco in Germany.
There is truth in what he said and he isn't a smooth talker that likes to go on rants... It isn't hard to understand. What he said was cavalier and did not allude to the context of where he heard it or what specific instance and he made it seem that everyone should know about it because mainstream news. That is how a lot of discussions with my family and politics are like.
It isn't hard to understand what he says if you are used to language beyond the professional polished vernacular of Obama/Clinton and journalists.
Was there truth to his statements about Sweden? Yes, but it did not give the context from which he heard it and it probably isn't as bad as he makes it. Go figure he talks like an uncle instead of polished politician.
Maybe you can help me understand. What should I be outraged about again?
Or if you understand that there are 2 sides to every story, especially in politics, and that you can still lie by stating all the facts i.e. lies of omission.
The media and government do not have an authority on truth.
Well said. Dishonesty in the news isn't only about getting the facts wrong. It's is also about what facts you don't include. I.e. Lies of omission are a big problem.
If all you do is report on one side of an argument is it really surprising that anyone on "that side" think of you dishonest? The best example I can think of is immigration. The argument has been framed as "racists hate immigration" and "immigration helps everyone". It is not the full story even if the "immigration helps everyone" is true. What is missing is "illegal" and what it means to allow immigration from places that have violent ideologues. It is just crazy especially when you consider that we (even with the temporary ban) allow more immigration than any other nation.
Couple that with extreme political correct speech and it becomes infuriating to be on the counter side of any main stream media position. This isn't' a new phenomenon. It has been around for years and before Trump. Romney is sexist because 'binders full of women". McCain is racist because reasons.
What does war with the press mean? Seriously. All I can see is that each (government and press) are vying for authority on truth which neither have. So what?
What I find funny is that news has become a 3rd person reading of twitter tweets. lol, because twitter has nothing to do with shit-posting. As the internet became more ingrained in society it was inevitable that politicians began shit-posting like the rest of us. It's just hilarious to find "old media" out of touch with shit-posting.
War on memes because pepe is white supremacist... I mean kek supremacist. top keks for everyone!
lol, I mean really? How can you take a news outlet that parades a war on memes seriously? On MEMES for gods sake. Don't they know that memes are dreams?
Faux outrage and slacktivism is not the new civil rights movement and it is not going to free the slaves (modern slaves that actually exist).
TBH, that goes both ways and why I find the Horse-shoe theory applicable. Both sides are doubling down and the real question is which side is pissing off the middle more than the other. Right now, I think more people are getting fed up with the left, hence POTUS Trump. Yea, Trump is disliked but that was true before he was elected. Obviously, that dislike wasn't enough. All he has done is what he promised on the campaign trail, like it or not. Just like the ACA that pissed off R's that Obama said he would do. Polls show his E.O. travel ban was popular . Looks like it is disliked by D's that wasn't going to like anything he did. Go figure.
Sure, there are some issues with the press and government over truthiness but neither have authority over truth. I like the government and media at odds because they should be critical of each other and not give a pass. No scandals from Obama? Right...
What is definitive is the violence is more often then not coming from the left. Whether that is paid agitators at campaign rallies or the antifa on inauguration and Berkley. There are allegations of *isms and *ists but a lot of those reports have been either false or carried out by people trying to craft that narrative of *isms and *ists. Like this.
If I had to gander a guess as to which is more repugnant to normal people; I would venture the guess to the violence, false accusations, and poorly justified allegations..
Okay, but where else in the English language does the prefatory clause limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence?
Again, I don't care about North and am not defending him. He did shit that was fucked up. That has nothing to do with English in written form and the courts interpretation of said English. That seems to be the main disagreement we have. If I may be so bold, you appear to interpret the 2nd to only apply to militia while I and the courts disagree with that assessment because prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence. Further, the application of that "right" that is stated in the 2nd has been upheld for people over 45 and women which destroys your idea that it only applies to the militia as defined by law. I am not sure what standing you have.
No. I just don't like being mis-represented even if 1 on 1 in addition to that media (/. comments are apart of social media) tends towards lies of omission on both sides.
So, you are going to continue believing that the prefatory clause limits the operative clause? Where else in English does that happen?
Hm. Interesting. If that was truly the meaning you would expect it to say "the right of the militia" but its "the right of the people". A well regulated militia is necessary but its the right of the people. Do you do that kind of gymnastics on language to get any meaning you want out of any text?
Language disagrees with you and the courts disagree with you. I think it is safe to say that your opinion on the matter is not only uninformed but flat out wrong.
Generally, I would agree but even if it is just you and me it is very dishonest to effectively change what I say in a quote. If it didn't' change the meaning then I don't really care. Perhaps I should have worded that question different but again, it comes off as dishonest because it changes what I said.
Not a grammar nazi but selective quotes of omission is a problem these days in media.
Also, I find it pretty dishonest of you to not quote the grammar effectively changing what I said. If you going to quote someone don't be a dishonest prick and change the meaning of what was said by lies of omission. You are no better than CNN.
lol, I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45 but sure thing because I don't know if you have heard this but women and people over 45 still can buy guns. Is this that fake news I have been hearing about?
The NRA like all organizations changes over time back in the time when Reagan was a governor the NRA was about hunting rifles. Laddy frickin da. During that time the "modern" position of the NRA was held by the black communities that felt the police had not upheld law and order and ignored their neighborhoods.
So, if you are suspected of a crime and a citizen: You can lose constitutionally protected rights? You like going in circles don't you?
Call me crazy but I don't think the mere accusation of a crime is enough to enact punishment that limits rights. I guess I am an old fashioned liberal.
so long as the FBI or whoever had not caught them terrorist suspects by any definition should be able to buy a gun
You mean so long as the government has not convicted you of a crime you cannot lose rights? Wow, color me surprised... -.-
Why do you want to take away peoples rights on an accusation? The "with due process of law" went over your thread, didn't it?
Interesting choice of words. Conned? Hm. I am not sure how having access to an equalizer is at my expense or how increasing my odds in any violent encounter is against my own self interest. Is that an alternative fact I keep hearing about?
Kind of hard to have rights when your dead. That is what I am getting at. Sure, there are some laws to protect the corpse unlike china and that falls under "due process of law".
You don't get to pick and choose over which bits of the Constitution to follow
Oh that's rich from the "only national guard" and age 45. Which parts am I ignoring?
Just as well it doesn't apply to your guns isn't it?
It does apply to "my" guns. In an over simplified way of saying it; the right of self defense means right to kill. Guns are a lethal tool. Nuance aside (over escalation, state law, etc), self defense is a reaction to someone taking actions against you. Just like a nation does not limit the responses it has to defend itself from attacks by law so to is the citizens responses to defend themselves not limited by the constitution. Yes, case by case basis and state law to make sure it wasn't excessive or w/e that is the nuance and each case should be examined to ensure it was indeed a lawful self defense act.
I find it interesting. That all enemies "foreign and domestic" that may attack a citizen, the reaction that citizen has to attacks on life and liberty are not limited by the constitution. You have an odd idea of "conned" if you think that not limiting a citizens ability to respond to actions against me is a bad thing.
Age 45: the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
How have I been tricked by North? Or people like him? How is defending the 2nd alluding to being tricked by him or others? I know it was some time ago and it might be difficult for you to read what I write. But if you look at my first response to you, it had nothing to do with North.
Felons: You can lose life, liberty or property with due process of law. Do you understand what that means? IOW, if you were charged with a serious crime (felony) and the state respected your legal rights (due process) and found you guilty (convicted): you can be put to death, your liberty deprived, and your property taken. I doubt you have the capacity or ability to recognize the nuance between the 8th amendment and capital punishment.
Maybe this is news to you but elections aren't decided by one issue. Sure, you as an individual may have that one issue that is important to you like your "undeniably racist Islamophobic platform" but for others that wasn't as important as other issues.
It isn't sophistry to say; others think differently than you and that there were other issues more important to them than what you think was important.
Really, why does that have to be the one singular issue that has to decide the election? Is it really "looking the other way" to think there were other issues more important? Nothing else was more important? Come on.
Not defending North but I am defending the right of arms and self defense.
I don't think you understand any of the subject matter or written language. You seem to regurgitate various talking points without understanding the actual issue. You think a prefatory clause is the same as the operative clause. That alone is enough to dismiss everything you said. When we are talking about law, a basic understanding of language is important but I guess that is too much for you.
Slashdot Mirror
You can lie even when you tell nothing but facts. Lies by omission are one example that can frame a narrative despite reality. For example: A historical black church was burned in Mississippi before the election and spray painted with "Vote Trump". 100% true. Reality: A historical black church was burned in Mississippi before the election and spray painted with "Vote Trump" carried out by a black member of said church. Care to take a guess what narrative was spun from the first statement? Hint: racists support Trump.
The media is there to keep politicians at least a little bit honest.
And what happens when the media is dishonest? This is what I don't think you understand that is very important. The media does not have an authority on the truth anymore than the government. If you are surrounded by liars how do you know what is in your best interests if they all want to sell you a dollar?
free to tell the most ridiculous and often petty lies.
Yes. Everyone is free to tell the most ridiculous and often petty lies. That is the point. No one has a monopoly on the truth. That is why Trump can do nothing to silence journalists. Journalists can be "silenced" by losing all credibility that has nothing to do with Trump.
media is there to keep politicians at least a little bit honest.
Honestly, that is the voters job. It should be the medias job to keep the electorate informed but sometimes the media fail at that. Who is the electorate supposed to listen to if the media's integrity has been compromised?
It was reported as news outside of op-ed as I said in my previous comment. If it was only op-ed I wouldn't have mentioned it. That link is the first one I grabbed from google was op-ed because I am lazy. Sue me. This was almost 10 years ago.
jumbling up opinion and journalism
Yes, and the point is that this has been happening for a long time before Trump. The point you seem to be missing from my first comment is "lies of omission coupled with extreme political correct speech make it infuriating to be on the contrary narrative of mainstream media".
How does that change the fact that the US accepts more immigrants and refugees than any other country?
When UAE and Qatar are at the top of your list then I am not concerned about being ranked low. Just because they can exploit immigrants doesn't mean it is an immigrant friendly nation. Gratz, slavery is a live and well and in places like Qatar hidden behind a facade of immigration.
Smells like bullshit.
Now where is my certificate of course completion?
I am with you right up til "Trump is trying to subvert that". He is pushing a different narrative. Big deal. That is not subversion. The press is not being hamstrung by the government. The press is not losing relevance because of the government. The press is not perceived as dishonest because of the government. The government didn't popularize the term "fake news" or "post-truth politics". The press are not being oppressed or their rights taken away by the government. The 1st amendment is still alive and strong and just like the rest of US history will allow anyone to say anything about the government. You have a very loose and broad term for "subvert" if you think "different narrative" is subversion of journalism and essentially, as you put it, democracy itself. Hyperbole much??
at worst that you should only believe what Trump writes on his Twitter feed.
Wow. Someone wants me to believe them over someone else. Why should I believe you?
Do you honestly believe that one side is honest? If so I have a bridge to sell you. All I need is to know which side you stand and frame the "sale" accordingly. People, governments, and institutions since the dawn of written word have been trying to convince you of something. Why is it now all the sudden an issue?
Trump wants to do it directly,
I honestly don't see an issue with this. He doesn't have a monopoly on it and what he says is no longer filtered with the bias of the journalists. The journalists can still do their job and so it is a win for the consumer of information because they can see what Trump is saying without the gatekeepers of information to filter his words in whatever narrative is being pushed. You can still get that narrative and that is what is important but I don't see how people getting what Trump says directly from Trump is bad.
they are forced to comment on Trump rather than what they want to talk about.
Yea, that whole "gatekeeper of information" and their filter. No one is forcing anyone to do anything except for the journalists forcing guests to comment on tweets. I see.
. Somehow silence or control the press so that they cannot be criticized,
ROFL... No one is being silenced. Everyone can still criticize the government and Trump. The press is losing viewership by their own doing and nothing Trump could do can silence them more then how they silence themselves by becoming irrelevant in the marketplace of ideas.
I should be alarmed that the press and government are at odds in the US? Relieved that the press is "strong enough"? LOL, I am relieved that the US values free speech to the point that a ministry of truth, from either government or media is laughable.
You are scared of someone saying something contrary to what CNN/NYTimes says. Grow up. CNN/NYTimes are not authorities on truth anymore than the government. The sooner you realize this the sooner you will realize that the government and media at odds is a good thing in a free and democratic society.
err.. circulating in 2007. You know what I mean.
Yes, but that was a narrative that was circulating in 2008. That was just one of the first google links I chose because I am lazy. One distinct memory I had of "McCain == racism" in 2008 I remember was the day after the election on CNN stating "there are not enough racists to beat Obama" and framed all McCain voters as racist. It was being paraded around for a while that against Obama == racist because he black.
That article maybe an op-ed but that narrative for sure was in the news being reported as fact during the 2008 general election.
Honestly, that is how I talk sometimes. See some report and in conversation make a generic statement about it that isn't 100% correct or contextual for the sake of brevity.
I don't get it. You say "reinterpret" but all I see is context. The context being "a segment on FNC b/w Tucker Carlson and Ami Horowitz" and "immigrants and rape/murder" rates and the under-reporting of those events that we have seen. For example, during the new years rape fiasco in Germany.
There is truth in what he said and he isn't a smooth talker that likes to go on rants... It isn't hard to understand. What he said was cavalier and did not allude to the context of where he heard it or what specific instance and he made it seem that everyone should know about it because mainstream news. That is how a lot of discussions with my family and politics are like.
It isn't hard to understand what he says if you are used to language beyond the professional polished vernacular of Obama/Clinton and journalists.
Was there truth to his statements about Sweden? Yes, but it did not give the context from which he heard it and it probably isn't as bad as he makes it. Go figure he talks like an uncle instead of polished politician.
Maybe you can help me understand. What should I be outraged about again?
Or if you understand that there are 2 sides to every story, especially in politics, and that you can still lie by stating all the facts i.e. lies of omission.
The media and government do not have an authority on truth.
Well said. Dishonesty in the news isn't only about getting the facts wrong. It's is also about what facts you don't include. I.e. Lies of omission are a big problem.
If all you do is report on one side of an argument is it really surprising that anyone on "that side" think of you dishonest? The best example I can think of is immigration. The argument has been framed as "racists hate immigration" and "immigration helps everyone". It is not the full story even if the "immigration helps everyone" is true. What is missing is "illegal" and what it means to allow immigration from places that have violent ideologues. It is just crazy especially when you consider that we (even with the temporary ban) allow more immigration than any other nation.
Couple that with extreme political correct speech and it becomes infuriating to be on the counter side of any main stream media position. This isn't' a new phenomenon. It has been around for years and before Trump. Romney is sexist because 'binders full of women". McCain is racist because reasons.
What does war with the press mean? Seriously. All I can see is that each (government and press) are vying for authority on truth which neither have. So what?
What I find funny is that news has become a 3rd person reading of twitter tweets. lol, because twitter has nothing to do with shit-posting. As the internet became more ingrained in society it was inevitable that politicians began shit-posting like the rest of us. It's just hilarious to find "old media" out of touch with shit-posting.
War on memes because pepe is white supremacist... I mean kek supremacist. top keks for everyone!
lol, I mean really? How can you take a news outlet that parades a war on memes seriously? On MEMES for gods sake. Don't they know that memes are dreams?
Faux outrage and slacktivism is not the new civil rights movement and it is not going to free the slaves (modern slaves that actually exist).
TBH, that goes both ways and why I find the Horse-shoe theory applicable. Both sides are doubling down and the real question is which side is pissing off the middle more than the other. Right now, I think more people are getting fed up with the left, hence POTUS Trump. Yea, Trump is disliked but that was true before he was elected. Obviously, that dislike wasn't enough. All he has done is what he promised on the campaign trail, like it or not. Just like the ACA that pissed off R's that Obama said he would do. Polls show his E.O. travel ban was popular . Looks like it is disliked by D's that wasn't going to like anything he did. Go figure.
Sure, there are some issues with the press and government over truthiness but neither have authority over truth. I like the government and media at odds because they should be critical of each other and not give a pass. No scandals from Obama? Right...
What is definitive is the violence is more often then not coming from the left. Whether that is paid agitators at campaign rallies or the antifa on inauguration and Berkley. There are allegations of *isms and *ists but a lot of those reports have been either false or carried out by people trying to craft that narrative of *isms and *ists. Like this.
If I had to gander a guess as to which is more repugnant to normal people; I would venture the guess to the violence, false accusations, and poorly justified allegations..
lol, if they didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Memes are dreams.
Racism. If you disagree that just means you are a racist. Probably a Nazi too.
I can punch you in the face now, right? Obviously Nazi obviously deserves to be punched in the face.
Okay, but where else in the English language does the prefatory clause limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence?
Again, I don't care about North and am not defending him. He did shit that was fucked up. That has nothing to do with English in written form and the courts interpretation of said English. That seems to be the main disagreement we have. If I may be so bold, you appear to interpret the 2nd to only apply to militia while I and the courts disagree with that assessment because prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause of a sentence. Further, the application of that "right" that is stated in the 2nd has been upheld for people over 45 and women which destroys your idea that it only applies to the militia as defined by law. I am not sure what standing you have.
No. I just don't like being mis-represented even if 1 on 1 in addition to that media (/. comments are apart of social media) tends towards lies of omission on both sides.
So, you are going to continue believing that the prefatory clause limits the operative clause? Where else in English does that happen?
Hm. Interesting. If that was truly the meaning you would expect it to say "the right of the militia" but its "the right of the people". A well regulated militia is necessary but its the right of the people. Do you do that kind of gymnastics on language to get any meaning you want out of any text?
Language disagrees with you and the courts disagree with you. I think it is safe to say that your opinion on the matter is not only uninformed but flat out wrong.
Generally, I would agree but even if it is just you and me it is very dishonest to effectively change what I say in a quote. If it didn't' change the meaning then I don't really care. Perhaps I should have worded that question different but again, it comes off as dishonest because it changes what I said.
Not a grammar nazi but selective quotes of omission is a problem these days in media.
Also, I find it pretty dishonest of you to not quote the grammar effectively changing what I said. If you going to quote someone don't be a dishonest prick and change the meaning of what was said by lies of omission. You are no better than CNN.
lol, I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45 but sure thing because I don't know if you have heard this but women and people over 45 still can buy guns. Is this that fake news I have been hearing about?
The NRA like all organizations changes over time back in the time when Reagan was a governor the NRA was about hunting rifles. Laddy frickin da. During that time the "modern" position of the NRA was held by the black communities that felt the police had not upheld law and order and ignored their neighborhoods.
s that even suspected terrorists should have guns
So, if you are suspected of a crime and a citizen: You can lose constitutionally protected rights? You like going in circles don't you?
Call me crazy but I don't think the mere accusation of a crime is enough to enact punishment that limits rights. I guess I am an old fashioned liberal.
so long as the FBI or whoever had not caught them terrorist suspects by any definition should be able to buy a gun
You mean so long as the government has not convicted you of a crime you cannot lose rights? Wow, color me surprised... -.-
Why do you want to take away peoples rights on an accusation? The "with due process of law" went over your thread, didn't it?
Interesting choice of words. Conned? Hm. I am not sure how having access to an equalizer is at my expense or how increasing my odds in any violent encounter is against my own self interest. Is that an alternative fact I keep hearing about?
Kind of hard to have rights when your dead. That is what I am getting at. Sure, there are some laws to protect the corpse unlike china and that falls under "due process of law".
You don't get to pick and choose over which bits of the Constitution to follow
Oh that's rich from the "only national guard" and age 45. Which parts am I ignoring?
Just as well it doesn't apply to your guns isn't it?
It does apply to "my" guns. In an over simplified way of saying it; the right of self defense means right to kill. Guns are a lethal tool. Nuance aside (over escalation, state law, etc), self defense is a reaction to someone taking actions against you. Just like a nation does not limit the responses it has to defend itself from attacks by law so to is the citizens responses to defend themselves not limited by the constitution. Yes, case by case basis and state law to make sure it wasn't excessive or w/e that is the nuance and each case should be examined to ensure it was indeed a lawful self defense act.
I find it interesting. That all enemies "foreign and domestic" that may attack a citizen, the reaction that citizen has to attacks on life and liberty are not limited by the constitution. You have an odd idea of "conned" if you think that not limiting a citizens ability to respond to actions against me is a bad thing.
Age 45: the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
How have I been tricked by North? Or people like him? How is defending the 2nd alluding to being tricked by him or others? I know it was some time ago and it might be difficult for you to read what I write. But if you look at my first response to you, it had nothing to do with North.
Felons: You can lose life, liberty or property with due process of law. Do you understand what that means? IOW, if you were charged with a serious crime (felony) and the state respected your legal rights (due process) and found you guilty (convicted): you can be put to death, your liberty deprived, and your property taken. I doubt you have the capacity or ability to recognize the nuance between the 8th amendment and capital punishment.
Maybe this is news to you but elections aren't decided by one issue. Sure, you as an individual may have that one issue that is important to you like your "undeniably racist Islamophobic platform" but for others that wasn't as important as other issues.
It isn't sophistry to say; others think differently than you and that there were other issues more important to them than what you think was important.
Really, why does that have to be the one singular issue that has to decide the election? Is it really "looking the other way" to think there were other issues more important? Nothing else was more important? Come on.
Not defending North but I am defending the right of arms and self defense.
I don't think you understand any of the subject matter or written language. You seem to regurgitate various talking points without understanding the actual issue. You think a prefatory clause is the same as the operative clause. That alone is enough to dismiss everything you said. When we are talking about law, a basic understanding of language is important but I guess that is too much for you.
You are delusional.