Well, since the article lists only the 1787 law, it stands to reason based on the hate the Liberals have shown regarding the 2nd Amendment and wanting it changed that the Reps have an easy soap box to stand on by wanting the rules to change. I mean, that's IF Liberals don't want to be the nasty hypocrites you have been for the last 3 years. It's funny to watch one party cling so hard to a law that was put in the books in 1787 but have years of recent history fighting another law because they claim it is outdated.
#54 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE
I don't specifically want the second amendment changed. I just want to go back to using the interpretation of it that held up from 1788 until 2006 (that it did not guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms due to the first part of the amendment inconveniently talking about "militias"). But, I honestly think that due to the conservative judicial activism that changed its legal interpretation, the constitution will be eventually amended to remove the second amendment.
So, now you are saying that you want to get rid of impeachment? That is about what I expect at this point from conservatives. EVEN YOU would have to admit that removing impeachment from the constitution would shred the checks and balances that are the basic framework of the constitution and have ensured that our form of government has survived this long. But, destroying this country stopped mattering to conservatives a long time ago. All that matters to them now is "winning" at all costs, no matter what the cost.
Also, you talk about "reasonable doubt". That is generally the standard of proof for a trial. The impeachment trial is what will happen in the Senate. We are still at the impeachment stage, which is equivalent to a grand jury, where an actual vote for impeachment is equivalent in the legal world to an indictment. The standard of proof in a legal proceeding for an indictment is "probably cause". It is a MUCH lower standard, though you will probably claim we have not even reached that standard. Mainly due to my next point which is...
You STILL have not specifically said WHAT would be impeachable. Like for pretty much all other conservatives on this site, it is a smart move for you to make. Because once you draw that line in the sand we will hit you over the head with it when you eventually have to uproot those goalposts and carry them toward the horizon. While I will continue to bash you for not making a concrete declaration of what is "impeachable". It will be a lot worse for you later when we go to an impeachment trial and all those white house officials who refuse to testify are now forced to, and there becomes no "reasonable doubt" that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo to have Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into Trump's political opponent (Biden) in return for Trump releasing congressionally allocated military aid that he had been holding up.
So, like all the other conservatives on this forum, accept your lumps now and go hide on other threads. It may be tough now but it will be MUCH TOUGHER to handle later if you don't.
And I can ALREADY make a very strong argument that there is "probable cause" to believe that Trump engaged in said quid pro quo, so even breaking down now and making a concrete statement won't save you from being raked over the coals for your lack of support for impeachment (but not yet removal).