The constitution says they serve "in good behavior", so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment.

Who would challenge it?

My question is, who brings suit? You can't bring suit if you're not an injured party. The justices can't bring suit without recusing themselves. This is quite the conundrum.

It would take a constitutional amendment, something that isn't going to happen.

Justices can just rule it unconstitutional.

Doing nothing productive with your life, everything revolves around social drama, getting permission to take a shit…

I enjoyed my time at school. But you've got to ask yourself, if the best time of your life was at school that means you've made bad decisions, so what did it prepare you for really? School failed you.

The truth is that school fails all of us.

That's not true either, almost every racist I run into on the internet talks mad shit about republicans for supporting Israel. Most of them wouldn't vote for either party. I saw multiple news articles about klansmen in 2016 supporting Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she was anti desegregation when she worked on the Goldwater campaign in the 60s.

I've met numerous liberals and leftists that were racist in private. Hell, Che Guevara was an outspoken racist. I don't think racism is partisan, there are just people like that out there.

You're going to need a source on the claim that most violent crime is in the furtherance of other profitable crime? You ever heard a phrase such as "if weed were legal then people wouldn't kill each other selling weed"? I thought this was settled science. Is it so outlandish an idea that most people who kill do it because it is profitable for them to do so that you want me to google it for you?

Alright, so let me ask you, what does "common sense" gun control look like?

I never unreasonably assumed he meant personal ownership. I just thought you know, since you can read a dead mans mind and know he was talking about the French revolution or something you must really, really know what you're talking about.

"Let them take arms" can be reasonably construed to mean "let them own guns". Saying "in no way" is categorically incorrect. Saying it might not mean that is not unreasonable, but saying it definitely doesn't is absolutely unreasonable, which is what you're saying.

What he meant, what was going on in his head, we can't know. Well, except for you apparently, because you really know what you're talking about. But the rest of us, all we can do is take his words at face value.

I've looked at those stats and I'm not really convinced.

Half of gun deaths are suicides. In those cases, a desire to die is the cause of death. Something is deeply wrong in our society if children want to kill themselves in epidemic numbers, and we need to figure out what that is and fix it.

Out of the rest, it's almost entirely violence from organized crime. That violence doesn't go away if you ban guns, at best other weapons get used, at worst criminals just don't obey the gun laws. When two rival groups are fighting over a crack dealing monopoly in a neighborhood, if you blame the result of that on the tools used you're ignoring another real problem. Why is America so addicted to drugs. Just like with suicide, I think we need to figure out what's driving that.

Something in our society is very very wrong, our society is sick and the symptoms are teen suicide (and veteran suicide and suicide as a result of divorce…) and widespread drug addiction. Guns show up in those dynamics simply because there are a lot of guns in America.

Projecting what?

We are discussing a Thomas Jefferson quote, not Ben Franklin, and in the quote we are discussing he literally says "let them take arms."

OK, well, maybe. if they're so harmless in the face of a standing army then why not let them have their guns?

I never said that, but you ascribing scenarios that a long dead man had in mind as opposed to taking their words at face value really tells me that you really, really know what you're talking about, a lot.

The militias are a protection for a free state, just as it says. Not "the government" but a set of institutions that are built by the people, that work to preserve their liberty, that exist only so long as they continue that mission in good faith. "The government" may or may not be a part of that equation, many would argue, including people that are on your side of the spectrum politically, that the government no longer represents the people or protects their freedom at all, so protecting them would not serve the goal of preserving a free state.

You must really know what you're talking about huh

The show ends early, but until the final season, very very closely. I won't spoil it but towards the end production of the show ran into some problems due to some ill advised behaviors by one of the actors, and then they kind of just tell you what happened in the book and rush through the shows ending, they covered like half a book in the final episode, the usual shitshow when a show dies prematurely.

The books don't end when the show does. The show is still worth watching, 100%, but I think if it had ended when syfy dropped it it would've ended on a high note.

You guys both need to stop eating garbage and start cooking your own food. It's cheaper, it's fun and you get to eat something that isn't made of garbage.

Except I think the dude actually likes it.

Removed by mod

Well, the D's know the name of the game is beat Trump, that's how biden got nominated, nobody actually liked him. They'll vote for Biden no matter what just to make sure Trump doesn't win.

The target demographic for this guy are Trump independents, that is, the people that won him the election in the rust belt in 2016, people who lean Democrat but were sick of the politicians and their constant bullshitting. So it's likely RFK is a way to spoil Trump, not the D's.