Hypotheticals are mental masturbation without the payoff. My entire point of view would be completely different if the founders point of view was completely different because America would be completely different. How can I possibly answer that? No, if I went back in time I’d think they were being stupid, but only because I know they think being armed is hugelllly necessary to the security of Liberty.
Because society today is run by half-wits that care solely about their political careers or twitter followers.
Yes free speech is outdated
Freedom of the press? Outdated
Able to protect yourself? Outdated
Not being forced to testify against yourself? Outdated
State must prove you guilty in a court of law? Outdated
Checks and balances? Outdated
Got to be kidding me with this shit man. Come on. You seem like a bright dude, but good lord here.
wow… Just wow.
This is as bad as dude trying to claim the 2nd isn’t written in plain English, and common usage of words dont’ change.
Jesus.
But the whims of society change, and tomorrow they could say that “everyone named Nick is now a slave”. If your name was Nick would you show up to my front door for work?
ANd btw, there is a more likely than not chance, they would remove the first clause of the 2nd, to make it clear, that it was an individual right. People privately owned cannons and warships when they wrote it. Pretty sure they would have freedom boners over an AR.
Do you see the Constitution as a set of procedures as opposed to a set of principles?
For instance - letters were covered under the 4th Amendment back then, whereas phone calls and texts are also covered today. The principle applies even though our means of communication have expanded.
No, quite the opposite–you’re the one applying modern definitions to 1700s verbiage.
In composing the 2A, the term well-regulated was intended to distinguish between regular and irregular military forces. And by using the term, the FFs made it clear the term militia didn’t refer to a ragtag group of citizens operating outside the confines of ‘regular’ military structure vis a vis composition (ie, who is and is not a member), regimentation (ie, rank), discipline, and arms. In other words, the 2A refers to a regular militia, not an irregular one. And no regular militia allows its members to arm themselves–uniformity of weaponry is vital in maintaining the readiness of a military unit, as it simplifies and streamlines the process of training, as well as that of weaponry repair and maintenance.
In contrast, and not to boast–if we go here, I will destroy your argument, because You. Are. Wrong.
If you choose to pursue this, a prediction: In very short order, you will wholly abandon any attempt at substantive discussion, and will resort to spewing insulting, personal non sequiturs at me.
Uh huh. Anyway, now that I have dispatched your misunderstanding of the term well regulated, which erroneous aspect re the meaning of the 2A would you like me to disabuse you of next?
The hypothetical is the basis for the overarching question. Should what the FF wanted EVER override the process by which we make and change laws? Even if they didn’t want guns in our hands, it’s not up to them, it’s up to society.
I already rephrased above because I realized I wasn’t being clear with my message. Themoreyouknow.
Doesn’t do anything to comment on my point. Best case scenario this comment was a waste of time.
No shit sherlock, it’s called a democracy (inb4 it’s a republic, same answer). That’s kinda my entire point.
Try jumping in front of a US Marshall arresting a felon without the cameras present and see what happens to you. Most of these round-up are MS-13 gang members, rapists, and other felons. I’m not so sure why they are getting any sympathy.
No. They added the amendment process on purpose. So, if we really want to change the Constitution we can.
I mean, yes and no. If the founders didn’t want guns in the hands of citizens than the Bill of Rights wouldn’t have had the 2A and society as we know it would be entirely different. What they wanted and what they did affects what society wants today. However, yes, they built the amendment process into the Constitution to allow future generations the ability to change it. So, ya, it’s up to us now.
But, the above has nothing to do with the question, “WHY do we care what the founding fathers intended?”
Nonesense. First of all, these are routine enforcement actions of largely career criminals (MS-13 gang members), drug dealers, rapists, and the like.
Second, I suggest reading up on John Lott’s “Broken Window” theory of policing. Little things add up quickly.
Third, not enforcing the laws (which are reasonable laws for any nation) has been the mistake. If we don’t enforce laws because it is not politically correct to do so, we cease to be a nation of laws, but of men. If the law is unreasonable, then Congress needs to change it. It is not law enforcement’s job to pick who gets what law enforces against them.
In a democracy 50.000001% of people can choose that the other 49.99999 are slaves, and government has to go along with it. Republic, not so. In our republic even more not so, because get this, people care about what the FF’s intent was.
Well except for eyedentist who will declare to the sky marriage is a right, but the second doesn’t apply to individuals, lol.
You can’t, by definition demolish the militia.
He refuses to understand the basic English of the amendment, refuses to understand the denotation of regulated, so I expect him to continue to refuse to acknowledge the definition of militia.
You saw my previous comment in that regard, I assume. The Heller decision was a stunning rejection of stare decisis. The meaning of the 2A is so clear, so plain, that Constitutional scholars used to call it the ‘Lost Amendment,’ because so little scholarship was devoted to it. Why bother writing about something when its meaning is undisputed? The notion that the 2A implies an individual right to arms as determined in Heller–that idea essentially didn’t even exist in legal-scholarship circles up until 30 years ago or so.
What’s ironic is that the fact that the 2A was not written with individual gun-ownership in mind does not, of itself, constitute evidence that individuals do not have a right to own a weapon. I dare say the FFs considered it obvious that all citizens (which they would understand to be white males, +/- landowners) have a right to own a weapon. The origins of this right can be traced to English Common law. Hell, the FFs probably considered it to be so obvious, they didn’t feel a need to mention it in the Constitution.
The point is, there are lots of ways to construct a compelling argument that American citizens have a right to own firearms (subject to limitations of course), but the 2A ain’t one of them.
Except that the 2A guarantees it, and it is reinforced by the correct Heller decision.
I don’t believe a woman has the right to murder her viable unborn child. But Roe very Wade makes it the law of the land. So much for the right to life.
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
George Washington
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
-George Mason
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
-George Mason
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
-James Madison
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
-Richard Henry
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
-Samuel Adams
“In composing the 2A, the term well-regulated was intended to distinguish between regular and irregular military forces.”
"Well-regulated. One of the modern militia leaders who testified before Congress said, in answer to a question by Representative Patricia Schroeder about his insignia, that the militia movement is informal, spontaneous, and without fixed leadership. No eighteenth-century defender of the militias would have spoken that way. Sensitive to the charge that militias could be mobs, they always stressed that they were talking of a proper militia, a good militia, a correct militia, one well-trained, well-disciplined, well-regulated.
The use of the last term is especially significant, since the king’s soldiers and sailors were called “regulars” in the eighteenth century. The militias, too, were “regular,” existing under rules (regulae). They did not boast a lesser discipline, just a right to continual upkeep of themselves and their equipment. Adam Smith took regulated to mean, principally, “regimented”—divided into bodies of troops.
General discussion of regulation concentrated on three matters: composition of the bands, arming (which included financing) them, and disciplining them. These three concerns are reflected in the Constitution’s militia clause, which speaks of a congressional power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16)."
You were saying?
Be specific–which aspect of the second clause are you referring to? (Fair warning: I’m setting you up to take a big tumble here, because I already know what you’re going to say.)
The “correct” Heller decision. That’s interesting phrasing. Will interesting to see if a future SCOTUS revisits this decision and reverses it.
I have never said anything to suggest Heller is not the law of the land; all I have said is I think it’s stunningly bad law. I will venture that I think it will be overturned someday.
Pretty sure this here says Obamacare should be buying me rifles, ammo and training classes along with Sally’s brithcontrol. Because if that debate told us anything, it’s that not paying for = denying access too.
