(ISIS) and US...

I understand the definitions you wrote just fine. I was just asking for your opinion in regard to the 2nd amendment, which you still have not provided. I realize you are just doing some fishing here, looking to get a rise out of people. I am simply trying to get you to answer a simple question with your own words. Simple, right?.

Didn't sound like a question the first time.

Thought I stated my opinion but if you didn't understand I'll try to be more clear.

The amendment is, and has been, quite clear until the recent batch of justices decided
to change it based on politics. The right to own guns can be regulated but not taken
away. The Supreme court has decided as such, though the present set of justices
keeps changing the rules.
 
I don't want you laughing so I'm trying to read critically...

Are you expressioning your opinion or stating fact regarding the second amendment and the Supreme Court? Or do consider your opinion and fact to be one in the same? Are errors in grammar just for a folksy effect?

Below is what you have posted. Ok, bloviate on...

I always laugh when people think they can read my mind but don't critically read what I wrote.





The second amendment, like a lot of the constitution and first ten amendments, was based

partly on British common law, including the Bill of Rights of 1689.




Thought I stated my opinion but if you didn't understand I'll try to be more clear.

The amendment is, and has been, quite clear until the recent batch of justices decided
to change it based on politics. The right to own guns can be regulated but not taken
away. The Supreme court has decided as such, though the present set of justices
keeps changing the rules.
 
This is getting quite interesting. Sturd is correct. To understand many of the laws of our constitution you first have to understand the time in which they were written. I hear many say "that is not what our forefathers had in mind for us" however when all that was written it was under a different mind set.
Some of what they wrote was a joke "all men are created equal" and yet they owned slaves. The reason however for the 2nd amendment was that during that time they did utilize the militia and those men of the militia were required to own their guns.They were not given guns, mounts or equipment.
To answer Dave, even Judges have an opinion and we may not all agree with what they have ruled. RowevsWade gave women the right to a legal abortion and yet not all agree with this and do everything in their power to shut down clinics.
 
The "militias" were any groups of volunteers who showed up to fight. They were usually farmers. They brought whatever weapons they had, which were usually rifes that were far superior to Bitish muskets, and they shot them extremely well. They had no rosters, and no uniforms. They assembled like a volumteer fire department. They worked well as militia units. They did not work well with the Continental Army, because they didn't have much respect for rank or following orders. or regular military.

At that time, there was huge distrust of giving a federal government too much central power for fear of creation of a new tyranny. In the new governent, the states were almost sovereign, like a confederation of 13 countries. There was even much debate about whether the Contintental Army should continue to exist as each state wanted their own miliatry. Constitution was drafted with a heavy emphasis on limiting the powers of the federal government, and setting boundries for it, otherwise the states would never have ratified it.

I'm imagining that conversation between Jefferson and Madison.

Jefferson: "I'm really amazed that a bunch of farmers with good rifles defeated the Brittish miltary!
Madison: "Yes, commmon citizens used their arms to free us from tirany. We will forge this document, a Constitution, so that citizens will have power over their government, and will never again be subjects of it."
Jefferson: "Yes. It is most important that the citizens be able to speak freely of their government, good or bad, and the press must be able to report on it, so that it will be transparent to the citizenry, and citizens will no more be required to worship according to the state established church of England, but will be free to worship as they choose, wherever and whenever they wish without being under penalty of law. This should be our First Amendment in the people's Bill of Rights. "
Madison: "Of course! And to be certain to preserve those rights, and prevent the new government from becomming a tyranny, we need a 2nd amendment that will prevent the it from disarming it's citizens so that these farmers can raise their children to develop the marksmanship skills they displayed, so they they can band together again to defend against a future tyranny in this new government, or foreign invaders, should the need arrise." This new government will think twicw about every trying to subjugate an armed citizenry.
Jeffserson: "Yes, yes! And in this amendment we will also give the federal government the power to decide which farmers meet our standards to own these weapons, what weapons they may own, and how much ammo they may posess, and we will make sure that farmer's weapons no longer may be superior to the weapons of the country's military - for their protection, of course!" I think the states will see that we mean well, and trust us to regulate the arms of their ctizens."
Madison: WTF???????? That is the very thing we just fought against, Thomas!
Jefferson: Thomas? He couldn't make it. I am his nephew, Sturd Jefferson.
 
This is getting quite interesting. Sturd is correct. To understand many of the laws of our constitution you first have to understand the time in which they were written. I hear many say "that is not what our forefathers had in mind for us" however when all that was written it was under a different mind set.
Some of what they wrote was a joke "all men are created equal" and yet they owned slaves. The reason however for the 2nd amendment was that during that time they did utilize the militia and those men of the militia were required to own their guns.They were not given guns, mounts or equipment.
To answer Dave, even Judges have an opinion and we may not all agree with what they have ruled. RowevsWade gave women the right to a legal abortion and yet not all agree with this and do everything in their power to shut down clinics.

And the judges ruled in favor of individuals owning guns because when the the amendment was written they believe that WAS the intent of the authors.

Yes the judges have an opinion, I get that. However their OPINION becomes law. We as citizens can have an opinion about it but acting against it isnt always wise
 
There is one school of thought that it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution, as it was originally MEANT, and apply the original principles to today's cases. Even though details and circumstances are different, the principles are unchanged. They feel the Constitution should be strictly adhered to, and that any changes to it should go through the process of amending it as prescribed within it.

There is another school of thought, that the Supreme Court has the duty to "correct" the Constitution, and make it say what contemporary justices feel it should have said in order to cover modern situations. Parcing words, and exploiting changes in the language are acceptable.

There is a 3rd school of thought that believes the Supreme Court are there to fix legislative screw ups, and to decide whther laws should stand based on whether the expected outcome is a good one or a bad one, and that the Constitution is a basic guideline to be considered, along with legal theories from foreign governments and entities.

I am of the first group. If you look at common practices at the time of it's ratification, and it is easy to see what they originally meant in a lot of cases.

When the Constitution was drafted, common folks had just defeated a tyrant's military with their personal arms. They were very fearful and supicious of the new government. The idea that they would want the new goverment to regulate their personal arms in any way at the time the Constitution was drafted is absurd.

The first federal "gun control" passed by congress, I believe was in 1934. The first war we ever fought, where the military was better armed than the civilan population was WWII.

Interesting Roe v Wade was metioned. Even fringe liberal Ginsberg felt it was settled on "bad law", though she was thrilled at the outcome. The court determined a woman had a Constitutional right to privacy, when the actual question should have been "at what point, from conception to birth, is there a "person" or a "human life" involved?" Since the Constitution does not address this, it defers this decision back to the states. Regardless of your stance on abortion, the way it was decided is indefensible.
 
There is one school of thought that it is the Supreme Court's duty to interpret the Constitution, as it was originally MEANT,

Reading the minds of the founders, through the lens of smartphones, drones, and GMO
food. Had the founders actually thought that only 1% of the populace was required to feed the rest,
or that we could instantaneously communicate vast amounts of information from east
to west (DIDN'T EXIST) coast, I would like that way of interpreting the constitution.
But I don't. Like it.
 
Reading the minds of the founders, through the lens of smartphones, drones, and GMO
food. Had the founders actually thought that only 1% of the populace was required to feed the rest,
or that we could instantaneously communicate vast amounts of information from east
to west (DIDN'T EXIST) coast, I would like that way of interpreting the constitution.
But I don't. Like it.


I have no idea what you said.
 
The constitution, as it was originally meant, was written for a country that didn't have
a west coast (it had a frontier), most people were farmers (now 1% of the population
feeds the rest of us), didn't have a zillion things that make us very different than
we were then. They were smart enough to make the wording malleable. So that saying
you can figure out what they meant isn't really very helpful, unless you plan on
subsistence farming, giving up Pitracer.com, and buying a slave.

Figuring out how the principles they were codifying apply now, that is far more
applicable. Since it's now, not then.

Does that make more sense?
 
No no my fine sturd. The applications of the Constitution are as important today as it was then. It doesn't matter what communication technologies we have or the age of information. The constitution is about liberty and freedom from tyranny. It's about personal rights. It's about keeping government small and in check. The feared a large and over bearing government because that is what they had just won their freedom from.

How is that not applicable today?

You just love to argue for the sake of arguing.
 
No no my fine sturd. The applications of the Constitution are as important today as it was then. It doesn't matter what communication technologies we have or the age of information. The constitution is about liberty and freedom from tyranny. It's about personal rights. It's about keeping government small and in check. The feared a large and over bearing government because that is what they had just won their freedom from.

How is that not applicable today?

Uhh, that's what I was trying to convey. They were smart enough to make the constitution such
that things they never imagined could be managed. But applying it to an agrarian society with a
frontier in what is now Ohio shouldn't (and didn't) necessarily result in the same
set of laws, that would be found constitutional, as in 1790.


You just love to argue for the sake of arguing.

Ditto.
 
After a critical reading, I understood the first time. I still disagree. The Constitution is now ignored and we are living in post-constitutional times.
 
For guys who were clueless about how the country would grow, and what technologies we might have, they did a pretty good job of predicting exactly what would happen with the government when the restrictions put on it by the Constitution were relaxed, and what would happen as we voluntarily gave up liberties in exchange for perceived security. The Constitution was not a one hit wonder. There are extensive writings by many of the founders explaining exactly what they were thinking and why. Best known is probably the Federalist Papers, a series of articles written and published to promote the new Constitution so that states would ratify it. They predicted that the government, by nature, would continually try to grow its self, and give itself more power, and offer security to the people in exchange for their liberties, being an ever growing burden on their lives, and that the adherence to the Constitution would be our only protection against it. They characterized government as a "necessary evil" in THEIR words. They also suggested that should the government get too big and too powerful, that the people should rise up and abolish it, hence the 2nd amendment. "Federalism" by the way, was the belief that individual states should government themselves, with the central federal government having very limited powers.

The Constitution was not written to grant us rights, nor can the government grant us rights. The Constitution was very clearly written on the theory that all the rights we have are a birthright from the Creator to all humanity, and that that the only purpose of government was to protect and ensure those rights, NOT to determine which ones we were worthy of or "responsible enough" for. The Constitution specifically outlines several of the most likely to be attacked in the Bill of Rights, and was written for the sole purpose of keeping that government leashed and under the control of the people.

The idea that they wrote the Constitution with a bunch of ambiguous language for the purpose that in the future it could easily be twisted and manipulated to destroy the Constitutional principles that they were meant to protect is about as absurd as the theory that they wrote the 2nd amendment to protect the right of the government to regulate personal arms at some point in the future, when tyranny might be a good thing for the people.
 
After a critical reading, I understood the first time. I still disagree. The Constitution is now ignored and we are living in post-constitutional times.

I agree. In the last 50-60 years we went from "its a living document that we can alter and manipulate that language" to "its a general guideline of suggestions that has no real relevance today, so lets not even bother playing word games with it".
 
The idea that they wrote the Constitution with a bunch of ambiguous language for the purpose that in the future it could easily be twisted and manipulated to destroy the Constitutional principles that they were meant to protect is about as absurd as the theory that they wrote the 2nd amendment to protect the right of the governmental to regulate personal arms at some point in the future, when tyranny might be a good thing for the people.

Unless one believes it was written by jokesters.

This is getting quite interesting. Sturd is correct. To understand many of the laws of our constitution you first have to understand the time in which they were written. I hear many say "that is not what our forefathers had in mind for us" however when all that was written it was under a different mind set.
Some of what they wrote was a joke "all men are created equal" and yet they owned slaves.
 
I agree. In the last 50-60 years we went from "its a living document that we can alter and manipulate that language" to "its a general guideline of suggestions that has no real relevance today, so lets not even bother playing word games with it".
I have heard that said about something that was written long before the Constitution...The Bible!
 
;)
image.jpg
 
Back
Top