HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The use of originalism to...

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:29 AM

The use of originalism to judge the 2nd amendment is a fools errand.

The only way you can do this is to make shit up. The Republicans on the Supreme Court are full of shit, they are liars.

19 replies, 790 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply The use of originalism to judge the 2nd amendment is a fools errand. (Original post)
fightforfreedom Jun 23 OP
In It to Win It Jun 23 #1
2naSalit Jun 23 #2
fightforfreedom Jun 23 #3
RobinA Jun 23 #5
In It to Win It Jun 23 #10
thatdemguy Jun 23 #7
fightforfreedom Jun 23 #11
Wednesdays Jun 23 #9
Dysfunctional Jun 23 #13
thatdemguy Jun 23 #14
Hangingon Jun 23 #12
RobinA Jun 23 #4
Model35mech Jun 23 #6
Dysfunctional Jun 23 #15
Model35mech Jun 23 #16
Dysfunctional Jun 23 #17
Model35mech Jun 23 #18
Dysfunctional Jun 23 #19
Baitball Blogger Jun 23 #8

Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:32 AM

1. Originalism is one of the greatest scams of the 21st (and 20th) century

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In It to Win It (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:38 AM

2. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In It to Win It (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:42 AM

3. When the founders wrote the 2nd amendment they were talking about muskets.

Theres some originalism you will never hear the Republicans on the supreme court talk about. Fucking liars.

We have the right to bare muskets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:49 AM

5. Unfortunately

they used the word "arms," thus paving the way for today's mayhem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobinA (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:09 PM

10. So "sex" has a certain meaning based on when it was written in 1964 (Bostock) per Thomas and Alito

but not "arms" in the 1700s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:59 AM

7. They quoted another case saying other wise.

That case states something along the lines of " the first amendment does not exclude modern forms of speech, the second does not exclude modern firearms"

case is Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts

here is the quote from this NY case.
Its reference to “arms” does
not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thatdemguy (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:11 PM

11. They pick and choose when it comes to originalism.

It's a con.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:03 PM

9. Gunships existed in 1791, too

Do you think the founders meant a private citizen could own a gunship? I certainly doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:41 PM

13. Yes, there were privateers in the War of 1812.

In 1856 the Declaration of Paris declared privateering illegal, but the US did not sign it declaring our navy was too small. The Hague Peace Conference in 1907 made privateering illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:41 PM

14. They did allow gun ships, most ships used during the Revolutionary war

where privately owned. The canons for the most part where privately owned. Whats even worse is the "gov" or what you would call it at times gave permits for the private ships to attack, kill and sink England's war ships. Basically they said go be pirates, we dont care and wont punish you for anything you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:31 PM

12. Sadly no, they were talking about "arms".

Muskets were the state of the art.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:46 AM

4. Originalism

is always an anti-intellectual fool's errand. In my book it's kind of an anti-argument. If you can't come up with an argument to support your position, just say, Well, the Founders never used those exact words. If you took it to its absurd conclusion the Constitution wouldn't apply to anything that didn't exist or wasn't contemplated when it when it was written. Or, for that matter, that it doesn't specifically address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 11:56 AM

6. Unfortunately for originalists, the Founders thought the Constitution required revision

and they set up the process for doing that.

Recognizing the need for revision is in its fundamental essence anti-originialist.

The Founders, in majority decisions set this up. It's damned surprising to me that this is still something that is argued about

As the US has a standing military of Army, Air-Force/Space Force, Navy/Marine contingents, there is really no need for the militia spoken of in the second amendment. The National Guard really IS NOT a militia of citizens, enrolled, drilled, and available for local/regional combat against England, France, Spain or those nations colonies, or the Indigenous Peoples remaining. It -IS- a wing of the military activated and controlled by federal command and released, on occassion to do safety and emergency response in its home states.

OUR SIDE has done a really SHODDY JOB of arguing this point, and moreover, protecting the Courts from crazy ideas and conservative extremism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model35mech (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:55 PM

15. The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia V Heller that people had the right to bear arms.

Basically, it split the 2nd Amendment into two parts. The first part is about having a well-regulated militia, and the second is about people's right to bear arms. In other words, they are saying that there is a pause after "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and before "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". If you read it that way you will understand what they are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dysfunctional (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 01:02 PM

16. Yes they did. But they DID NOT RULE the Constitution couldn't be modified

Go ahead try to spin that AWAY FROM MY INTENT.

The Constitution outlines the process for modification.

That a process was OUTLINED in some detail, suggests that modification was not only anticipated, but that modification WOULD BE REQUIRED as the nation moved forward through decades and centuries.

Just what the Hell were you arguing against??? The Founder's intent and expectations are really VERY VERY CLEAR.

We have a REPUBLIC, if we don't let devious minds strip it away from us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model35mech (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 01:54 PM

17. Where have I ever written that the Constitution can't be changed?

Where I have I ever written that the Supreme Court can't change its interpretation of the Constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dysfunctional (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 01:58 PM

18. You my not dear friend are an internet oppositionalist

You think I unfairly suspect your postion

But you have no appreciation as to how you malaign mine.

Typical social media behavior IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Model35mech (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 02:07 PM

19. I am sorry if you misinterpreted my post, I could have written it better.

Actually, all I was referring to was your mention of a militia. What I was trying to say was that the way the Supreme Court ruled was that the first two clauses, separated by commas do not have anything to do with the right of people to keep and bear arms. At no point did I write my opinion of the 2nd Amendment, I was just stating what the Supreme Court thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightforfreedom (Original post)

Thu Jun 23, 2022, 12:00 PM

8. Voo doo wordsmiths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread