General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 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.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In It to Win It
(8,236 posts)
2naSalit
(86,536 posts)fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Theres some originalism you will never hear the Republicans on the supreme court talk about. Fucking liars.
We have the right to bare muskets.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)they used the word "arms," thus paving the way for today's mayhem.
In It to Win It
(8,236 posts)but not "arms" in the 1700s.
thatdemguy
(453 posts)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,
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)It's a con.
Wednesdays
(17,342 posts)Do you think the founders meant a private citizen could own a gunship? I certainly doubt it.
Dysfunctional
(452 posts)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.
thatdemguy
(453 posts)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.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Muskets were the state of the art.
RobinA
(9,888 posts)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.
Model35mech
(1,530 posts)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.
Dysfunctional
(452 posts)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.
Model35mech
(1,530 posts)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.
Dysfunctional
(452 posts)Where I have I ever written that the Supreme Court can't change its interpretation of the Constitution?
Model35mech
(1,530 posts)You think I unfairly suspect your postion
But you have no appreciation as to how you malaign mine.
Typical social media behavior IMHO.
Dysfunctional
(452 posts)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.
