Political Affiliation Poll

[Joe King]

The Constitution creates a branch of government to interpret it.

That interpretation starts with what the original intent of the Founders was at the time it was written.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

That interpretation starts with what the original intent of the Founders was at the time it was written.

I agree it should start there. After that you apply a contemporary context as well.

For example, The FF never imagined individual firearm rights when they ratified the 2nd amendment. However, when Heller was decided the re-interpretation of that amendment to provide for individual firearm rights makes sense in certain lights given that we live in a nation of 350,000,000 people where violent criminals also exist.

 

[Joe King]

I agree it should start there. After that you apply a contemporary context as well.

No. It was never intended to be changed based on the whims of the day.

The words in it are supposed to be defined the same way now as they were then. The Rights it protected in the Founding generation are the same for you and and I today. No redefining of words can reduce our Rights.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

No. It was never intended to be changed based on the whims of the day.

The words in it are supposed to be defined the same way now as they were then. The Rights it protected in the Founding generation are the same for you and and I today. No redefining of words can reduce our Rights.

It’s not the “whims of the day” to apply a contemporary context.

For example, if no contemporary context were added freedom of speech and the press wouldn’t apply to the internet since the FF clearly never imagined such rights would apply to said forum.

Not applying contemporary context would reduce our rights. Heller would be another example of this.

 

[Joe King]

It’s not the “whims of the day” to apply a contemporary context.

It most certainly would be. We have the exact same Rights as the Founding Fathers enjoyed.

For example, if no contemporary context were added freedom of speech and the press wouldn’t apply to the internet since the FF clearly never imagined such rights would apply to said forum.

Not applying contemporary context would reduce our rights. Heller would be another example of this.

That's not how it works, at all. Our Constitutionally protected Rights are general Rights, not specific Rights only to things as they were at the time of the nations Founding.

For example, that's why the 2nd Amendment does not specify what type of arms may be owned or bared. It doesn't even specify firearms. It applies to ALL arms.

It guaranteed the general Right for themselves and their progeny to bear whatever type of "arms" that might ever exist.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

It most certainly would be. We have the exact same Rights as the Founding Fathers enjoyed.


That's not how it works, at all. Our Constitutionally protected Rights are general Rights, not specific Rights only to things as they were at the time of the nations Founding.

For example, that's why the 2nd Amendment does not specify what type of arms may be owned or bared. It doesn't even specify firearms. It applies to ALL arms.

It guaranteed the general Right for themselves and their progeny to bear whatever type of "arms" that might ever exist.

We have more rights now than the FF.

Also that’s not how The SCOTUS has ever interpreted that right or the 2nd amendment but you already know that.

You are correct that they are general rights which is why they must always be re-interpreted with respect to contemporary society. Otherwise, people end up having their rights artificially limited.

 

[Joe King]

We have more rights now than the FF.

Also that’s not how The SCOTUS has ever interpreted that right or the 2nd amendment but you already know that.

You are correct that they are general rights which is why they must always be re-interpreted with respect to contemporary society. Otherwise, people end up having their rights artificially limited.

We have the same Rights. All that has happened is that protected Rights have been expanded to include those not originally covered. For example, lowering the voting age to 18, or allowing women to vote. The Right to vote itself has not been increased, just who can vote, has been.
....and recent 2A rulings have reinforced the idea that if there is no historical context of limiting those Rights, they may not be limited now.

What you are arguing for, is the same mistaken view that libs use when they say that ar-15's aren't protected under 2A because all they had back then were muskets. That type of thinking is dead wrong. There is no need to re-interpret the 2A just because a new type of arms is invented. It's already covered.
....and I don't care that we've previously had left leaning Justices on the SC that took the position you espouse. Those Justices were wrong.

 

[Joe King]

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

We have the same Rights. All that has happened is that protected Rights have been expanded to include those not originally covered. For example, lowering the voting age to 18, or allowing women to vote. The Right to vote itself has not been increased, just who can vote, has been.
....and recent 2A rulings have reinforced the idea that if there is no historical context of limiting those Rights, they may not be limited now.

What you are arguing for, is the same mistaken view that libs use when they say that ar-15's aren't protected under 2A because all they had back then were muskets. That type of thinking is dead wrong. There is no need to re-interpret the 2A just because a new type of arms is invented. It's already covered.
....and I don't care that we've previously had left leaning Justices on the SC that took the position you espouse. Those Justices were wrong.

No but you’re obviously committed to gaslighting.

 

[Joe King]

Since we are discussing our Rights and the Constitution, there is in fact another way to effectively change the Constitution that does not use the Amendment process.

Does anyone know what it is?

Here is a hint. It's already been used quite successfully to reduce our Rights and imprison people, and in a way that everyone reading these words is well aware of, but probably not the process used to have done so.

Any guesses?

 

[Joe King]

No but you’re obviously committed to gaslighting.

Not gaslighting anyone. Simply stating how it's supposed to work.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Not gaslighting anyone. Simply stating how it's supposed to work.

So then you also believe that women have the right to an abortion under the 1st, 5th, & 14th amendments?

 

[Joe King]

So then you also believe that women have the right to an abortion under the 1st, 5th, & 14th amendments?

Only if their State allows it. Abortion is not covered by the Constitution. If the People want it to be, there is a process to add it to the Constitution. Until then, it's not the federal gov's business.

Ie: the recent ruling on it corrected the mistaken ruling from 49 years earlier that was imposed by an activist court.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Only if their State allows it. Abortion is not covered by the Constitution. If the People want it to be, there is a process to add it to the Constitution. Until then, it's not the federal gov's business.

Ie: the recent ruling on it corrected the mistaken ruling from 49 years earlier that was imposed by an activist court.

Well you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in over expansive rights that The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say exist or you don’t.

I’m not surprised to see hypocrisy here on your part.

This is why you shouldn’t make your first false argument like you did and instead stick to what The Constitution & The SCOTUS actually say.

 

[TheResister]

Well trust me there are plenty of white people here (not that it means dick anyways). I guess move to a different area if you don’t like your current situation?

As China and Russia continue to fail and fall apart the global refugee crisis is going to skyrocket. Every person in the world is going to want to come here and we need the workers to fill out the industrial plant expansion our country is experiencing.

Just do what I did and move into an HOA. I have one black neighbor but it’s not big deal since he pays to have his lawn taken care of such like the HOA bylaws require.

LOL. You and I would never be on the same page. Moving into an HOA means giving up your constitutional Rights (if you are inclined to fight for them.) HOAs are now resorting to having you agree not to own a firearm in order to live in that subdivision.

I'm not up in my neighbors business. So, they shouldn't be up in mine. But, people come to a neighborhood and demand that you live your life to their expectations. Screw that. I was here first. If they don't like the way I live my life, they should be the ones to move. FWIW, I'd rather have a Black neighbor that would respect my Rights (if that were possible) rather than my wife's son who lives in a tent in someone's yard because he's too lazy to work. Whites have become the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.

Our culture, that culture that created American exceptionalism, is what I'd like to reclaim. History is cyclical, so hopefully I'll live to see it again.

 

[Joe King]

Well you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe in over expansive rights that The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say exist or you don’t.

I’m not surprised to see hypocrisy here on your part.

No hypocrisy. You need to realize that certain things are off limits for the federal government and are retained by the People and/or the States.

The federal government is only entitled to do that which is specifically authorized by the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment says as much.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say the federal gov can do something, it can't.
Abortion is one of those things, and as such, the federal gov can't say anything about it one way or the other. The RvsW decision was the result of an overly activist court attempting to read stuff into the Constitution.

 

[Joe King]

LOL. You and I would never be on the same page. Moving into an HOA means giving up your constitutional Rights (if you are inclined to fight for them.)

He's obviously not.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

No hypocrisy. You need to realize that certain things are off limits for the federal government and are retained by the People and/or the States.

The federal government is only entitled to do that which is specifically authorized by the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment says as much.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say the federal gov can do something, it can't.
Abortion is one of those things, and as such, the federal gov can't say anything about it one way or the other. The RvsW decision was the result of an overly activist court attempting to read stuff into the Constitution.

Leaning into the gaslighting is a pretty bold move.

Abortion and its regulation are clearly covered under Article 1 section 8 as well as the 10th amendment.

“the federal government can’t say anything about it one way or the other” is easily one of the least accurate things I’ve ever read. The federal government can say something about anything as authorized under Article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment.

And yes, the hypocrisy is so glaring it’s hard to take you seriously. As you so eloquently pointed out in bold the People retain the right to have their elected representatives in the federal government form policy as they see fit and on any topic not solely reserved to the federal government.

Supreme Court Interpretation of the Tenth Amendment After The New Deal - FindLaw

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" created huge government programs aimed at pulling the United States out of the Great Depression. But it also had a profound effect on how the Supreme Court approaches cases involving the Tenth Amendment. Find out more on FindLaw.

constitution.findlaw.com

The power of Congress over interstate commerce “is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”

“Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.”


“Thus, the general rule was that limits on Congress’s authority to regulate state activities are structural, not substantive—i.e., that States must find their protection from congressional regulation through the national political process, not through judicially defined spheres of unregulable state activity.“

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

LOL. You and I would never be on the same page. Moving into an HOA means giving up your constitutional Rights (if you are inclined to fight for them.) HOAs are now resorting to having you agree not to own a firearm in order to live in that subdivision.

I'm not up in my neighbors business. So, they shouldn't be up in mine. But, people come to a neighborhood and demand that you live your life to their expectations. Screw that. I was here first. If they don't like the way I live my life, they should be the ones to move. FWIW, I'd rather have a Black neighbor that would respect my Rights (if that were possible) rather than my wife's son who lives in a tent in someone's yard because he's too lazy to work. Whites have become the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.

Our culture, that culture that created American exceptionalism, is what I'd like to reclaim. History is cyclical, so hopefully I'll live to see it again.

Moving into an HOA does not mean giving up your rights!

JFC what planet do you live on? HOAs regulate property development & sustainment via contractual agreements. To even suggest that it’s mainstream for HOAs to regulate and limit firearms rights is more flagrantly inaccurate than saying men can have babies.

HOA Rules On Guns: Can Guns Be Banned In HOAs? | HOAM

Can a homeowners association adopt HOA rules on guns? Are total gun bans in communities allowed? Click here to find out!

www.hoamanagement.com

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns under the Second Amendment, but this right is not all-encompassing. It does not extend to all places. As per District of Columbia v. Heller, the only absolute right to a gun that the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged is the right to keep a gun in the home for self-protection.

Based on this, homeowners associations can’t prohibit residents from keeping guns in their homes. As far as HOA rules on gun safety go, associations also can’t check whether or not residents have guns in their homes.

 

[TheResister]

Moving into an HOA does not mean giving up your rights!

JFC what planet do you live on? HOAs regulate property development & sustainment via contractual agreements. To even suggest that it’s mainstream for HOAs to regulate and limit firearms rights is more flagrantly inaccurate than saying men can have babies.

HOA Rules On Guns: Can Guns Be Banned In HOAs? | HOAM

Can a homeowners association adopt HOA rules on guns? Are total gun bans in communities allowed? Click here to find out!

www.hoamanagement.com

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns under the Second Amendment, but this right is not all-encompassing. It does not extend to all places. As per District of Columbia v. Heller, the only absolute right to a gun that the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged is the right to keep a gun in the home for self-protection.

Based on this, homeowners associations can’t prohibit residents from keeping guns in their homes. As far as HOA rules on gun safety go, associations also can’t check whether or not residents have guns in their homes.

You don't have a lot of legal experience, do you? I do. From your own article:

"but the answer isn't black and white."

The problem we have by changing our government from a Republic to a Democracy is that the courts now legislate from the bench. They rule on what the Constitution means and then reverse themselves. So, an act you do today is done legally and in good faith only to be deemed to be illegal tomorrow. The REAL issue is, do HOAs try to limit your gun Rights? The answer is YES. Will they find sympathetic judges? Bet your ass on it.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You don't have a lot of legal experience, do you? I do. From your own article:

"but the answer isn't black and white."

The problem we have by changing our government from a Republic to a Democracy is that the courts now legislate from the bench. They rule on what the Constitution means and then reverse themselves. So, an act you do today is done legally and in good faith only to be deemed to be illegal tomorrow. The REAL issue is, do HOAs try to limit your gun Rights? The answer is YES. Will they find sympathetic judges? Bet your ass on it.

No they don’t and no we don’t live in a democracy we live in a republic. Furthermore, yes it is black and white as I pointed out.

The judicial branch performing their constitutionally authorized functions doesn’t change the government from a republic to a direct democracy.

I certainly have the most legal experience of anyone on this forum given that I am actually a practicing lawyer. The real problem we have on this forum is a bunch of people who aren’t lawyers, or even educated, trying to act like they know better than The Supreme Court how The Constitution is interpreted. See @Joe King & yourself as examples.

 

[Long Cat V2.0]

No party affiliation

 

[TheResister]

No they don’t and no we don’t live in a democracy we live in a republic. Furthermore, yes it is black and white as I pointed out.

The judicial branch performing their constitutionally authorized functions doesn’t change the government from a republic to a direct democracy.

I certainly have the most legal experience of anyone on this forum given that I am actually a practicing lawyer. The real problem we have on this forum is a bunch of people who aren’t lawyers, or even educated, trying to act like they know better than The Supreme Court how The Constitution is interpreted. See @Joe King & yourself as examples.

The problem with being a "practicing" lawyer is that you are, most likely, approved at some level by the American (sic) Bar Association. That is the most liberal organization in the United States - a bit left of Marx and Lenin to be honest.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't the only one with legal experience.. or a legal education. I worked on legal teams that had TWO cases that were heard by the United States Supreme Court. Both of those cases were won. How many times have you worked on cases even heard by the SCOTUS?

You have misrepresented my position. Attorney (pronounced a TURN ee) - one who turns things around.

The media and the public skool system drills it into people day in and day out that "America is a democracy." We got away from the states picking the U.S. Senators, inching us closer to a democracy. There is an effort to abolish the electoral college. And then there is the United States Supreme Court.

The only constitutional authority the United States Supreme Court has is the power of review. But, as you know (if you're being honest) is that the SCOTUS essentially proclaimed that they are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison.) So much for the B.S. of a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

The Supremes decided that they could grant plenary powers to Congress (Chy Lung v. Freeman.) Did your law degree prepare you for answering the question of WHERE such an authority can be found in our Constitution? My next criticism is based more in common sense:

If the power of review means that the SCOTUS can reinterpret their own decisions, there is no way in HELL that you can I can obey the law. What is legal today is going to be illegal sooner or later, given that the courts are operating on what is most popular at the time. THAT is why Washington admonished the people to allow changes only through amendments.

No sir, a government that operates on the basis of a popularity contest is NOT the Republican Form of Government guaranteed in the Constitution. It is the antithesis of it. And anyone who tells you it takes a lawyer to understand that is feeding you a ton of horseshit.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The problem with being a "practicing" lawyer is that you are, most likely, approved at some level by the American (sic) Bar Association. That is the most liberal organization in the United States - a bit left of Marx and Lenin to be honest.

Don't flatter yourself. You aren't the only one with legal experience.. or a legal education. I worked on legal teams that had TWO cases that were heard by the United States Supreme Court. Both of those cases were won. How many times have you worked on cases even heard by the SCOTUS?

You have misrepresented my position. Attorney (pronounced a TURN ee) - one who turns things around.

The media and the public skool system drills it into people day in and day out that "America is a democracy." We got away from the states picking the U.S. Senators, inching us closer to a democracy. There is an effort to abolish the electoral college. And then there is the United States Supreme Court.

The only constitutional authority the United States Supreme Court has is the power of review. But, as you know (if you're being honest) is that the SCOTUS essentially proclaimed that they are the final arbiters of what the law is (Marbury v. Madison.) So much for the B.S. of a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

The Supremes decided that they could grant plenary powers to Congress (Chy Lung v. Freeman.) Did your law degree prepare you for answering the question of WHERE such an authority can be found in our Constitution? My next criticism is based more in common sense:

If the power of review means that the SCOTUS can reinterpret their own decisions, there is no way in HELL that you can I can obey the law. What is legal today is going to be illegal sooner or later, given that the courts are operating on what is most popular at the time. THAT is why Washington admonished the people to allow changes only through amendments.

No sir, a government that operates on the basis of a popularity contest is NOT the Republican Form of Government guaranteed in the Constitution. It is the antithesis of it. And anyone who tells you it takes a lawyer to understand that is feeding you a ton of horseshit.

 

[Joe King]

Abortion and its regulation are clearly covered under Article 1 section 8 as well as the 10th amendment.

10th, but only in that it is not within the federal govs authority. The first A has nothing to do with abortion. Free speech has nothing to do with killing unborn babies.

And yes, the hypocrisy is so glaring it’s hard to take you seriously. As you so eloquently pointed out in bold the People retain the right to have their elected representatives in the federal government form policy as they see fit and on any topic not solely reserved to the federal government.

The Constitution limits federal government powers to only what is authorized by the Constitution itself. Nowhere does it say anything about having any authority (one way or the other) over ending the life of an unborn baby. The authority simply doesn't exist. That you think it does, says that you don't really want what the Founders intended. You want a different meaning to be applied to it that perverts their intent.

Moving into an HOA does not mean giving up your rights!

JFC what planet do you live on? HOAs regulate property development & sustainment via contractual agreement.

If you sign said agreement, you could very well waive some of your Rights by having done so.

I've seen cases where the contract stated that no flag poles were allowed, and someone put one up only to discover that they had waived their Right to do so when they signed it.
....and there have been lots of similar cases where people tried doing things after they'd lived there awhile, only to find out that they'd signed some of their Rights away. I'd be surprised if you had never heard of any such cases. They happen all the time.

Abortion and its regulation are clearly covered under Article 1 section 8 as well as the 10th amendment.

“the federal government can’t say anything about it one way or the other” is easily one of the least accurate things I’ve ever read. The federal government can say something about anything as authorized under Article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment.

That's not what the latest SC ruling on it said. Or do you not abide by SC rulings you personally disagree with?

The recent ruling did nothing other than turn the issue back over to the States. Where it belongs.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right to own guns under the Second Amendment, but this right is not all-encompassing. It does not extend to all places. As per District of Columbia v. Heller, the only absolute right to a gun that the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged is the right to keep a gun in the home for self-protection.

What it means is that the federal gov isn't supposed to make any laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

The words, "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I agree it should start there. After that you apply a contemporary context as well.

For example, The FF never imagined individual firearm rights when they ratified the 2nd amendment. However, when Heller was decided the re-interpretation of that amendment to provide for individual firearm rights makes sense in certain lights given that we live in a nation of 350,000,000 people where violent criminals also exist.

no. The 2nd amendment is for the individual, which makes up the "state" in the amendment. The ONLY context is in the Declaration of Independance.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

How can this duty be satisfied without arms??? It cannot be.

How is it that mankind can ensure that their rights (unalienable, not bestowed by government, but by their creator) not be taken??? Answer: arms.

It was the right and the duty of the individual to have arms so that when called upon, they would have the tools to answer the call properly.

It has always been an individuals right.

It is disingenuous to think otherwise.

Rights are for slaves anyway, I need no permission to own a gun, and never will.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

10th, but only in that it is not within the federal govs authority. The first A has nothing to do with abortion. Free speech has nothing to do with killing unborn babies.


The Constitution limits federal government powers to only what is authorized by the Constitution itself. Nowhere does it say anything about having any authority (one way or the other) over ending the life of an unborn baby. The authority simply doesn't exist. That you think it does, says that you don't really want what the Founders intended. You want a different meaning to be applied to it that perverts their intent.




If you sign said agreement, you could very well waive some of your Rights by having done so.

I've seen cases where the contract stated that no flag poles were allowed, and someone put one up only to discover that they had waived their Right to do so when they signed it.
....and there have been lots of similar cases where people tried doing things after they'd lived there awhile, only to find out that they'd signed some of their Rights away. I'd be surprised if you had never heard of any such cases. They happen all the time.


That's not what the latest SC ruling on it said. Or do you not abide by SC rulings you personally disagree with?

The recent ruling did nothing other than turn the issue back over to the States. Where it belongs.



What it means is that the federal gov isn't supposed to make any laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

The words, "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear.

Signing a contracting saying you’re not going to hoist a flag pole is in no way the same as having your rights violated. People can agree to whatever they want.

I’m not surprised you’re not interested in having an intelligent conversation on this topic but I guess I had held out hope given your position on chem trails.

“Killing unborn babies”

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

no. The 2nd amendment is for the individual, which makes up the "state" in the amendment. The ONLY context is in the Declaration of Independance.

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

How can this duty be satisfied without arms??? It cannot be.

How is it that mankind can ensure that their rights (unalienable, not bestowed by government, but by their creator) not be taken??? Answer: arms.

It was the right and the duty of the individual to have arms so that when called upon, they would have the tools to answer the call properly.

It has always been an individuals right.

It is disingenuous to think otherwise.

Rights are for slaves anyway, I need no permission to own a gun, and never will.

 

[TheResister]

Signing a contracting saying you’re not going to hoist a flag pole is in no way the same as having your rights violated. People can agree to whatever they want.

I’m not surprised you’re not interested in having an intelligent conversation on this topic but I guess I had held out hope given your position on chem trails.

“Killing unborn babies”

LMAO. People cannot agree to just anything. There is this thing called public policy. If a contract violates public policy, it is null and void. And then there is this:

If an HOA can compel you to sign a document that has you forfeit an unalienable Right, then apparently unalienable Rights do not exist. If unalienable Rights do not exist then our forefathers went to war on a false premise and built a country on absolute lies. If that's the case, we sure as Hell don't have a constitutional Republic. Not sure what you'd call that.

Part of the reason we cannot attract good candidates to public office is that they've been indoctrinated in Newspeak and can't tell you much about how or why this country came into being. Maybe we should start having real conversations as opposed to pissing matches and dick measuring contests.

 

[TheResister]

Yes to the first part. No to the second.

The Constitution creates a branch of government to interpret it. As that branch of government changes with different people and time those interpretations will change.

If the Constitution weren’t open to re-interpretation Dobbs wouldn’t have ever happen. Same goes for Heller.

You mistake POWER for AUTHORITY.

 

[racernhra]

On sale now. I might even give it away for free.

 

[TheResister]

We have the same Rights. All that has happened is that protected Rights have been expanded to include those not originally covered. For example, lowering the voting age to 18, or allowing women to vote. The Right to vote itself has not been increased, just who can vote, has been.
....and recent 2A rulings have reinforced the idea that if there is no historical context of limiting those Rights, they may not be limited now.

What you are arguing for, is the same mistaken view that libs use when they say that ar-15's aren't protected under 2A because all they had back then were muskets. That type of thinking is dead wrong. There is no need to re-interpret the 2A just because a new type of arms is invented. It's already covered.
....and I don't care that we've previously had left leaning Justices on the SC that took the position you espouse. Those Justices were wrong.

The reality is the founders DID anticipate us owning firearms for private use.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“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, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated to the Supreme Court by the man that wrote the Second Amendment)

AND there is a reason I quote these people. Jefferson ends this never ending argument:

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Finally, it is total bullshit when any liberal tells you that high capacity firearms made any difference. Thomas Jefferson was president when Lewis and Clark went on their historical expedition. Among some of the things they took with them were rifles that had a 28 round capacity and were privately owned. Jefferson knew what was going on and yet Congress did not alter the Constitution nor did Jefferson advocate for it.

You are right and now you know the rest of the story based upon fact.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

We have the same Rights. All that has happened is that protected Rights have been expanded to include those not originally covered. For example, lowering the voting age to 18, or allowing women to vote. The Right to vote itself has not been increased, just who can vote, has been.
....and recent 2A rulings have reinforced the idea that if there is no historical context of limiting those Rights, they may not be limited now.

What you are arguing for, is the same mistaken view that libs use when they say that ar-15's aren't protected under 2A because all they had back then were muskets. That type of thinking is dead wrong. There is no need to re-interpret the 2A just because a new type of arms is invented. It's already covered.
....and I don't care that we've previously had left leaning Justices on the SC that took the position you espouse. Those Justices were wrong.

So we should also interpret the 1st as NOT including email, or text or even typewriter printed stuff. If it is not spoken hearshot, or written with a pen, then abolish it?

Make sense to me.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

The reality is the founders DID anticipate us owning firearms for private use.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“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, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated to the Supreme Court by the man that wrote the Second Amendment)

AND there is a reason I quote these people. Jefferson ends this never ending argument:

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Finally, it is total bullshit when any liberal tells you that high capacity firearms made any difference. Thomas Jefferson was president when Lewis and Clark went on their historical expedition. Among some of the things they took with them were rifles that had a 28 round capacity and were privately owned. Jefferson knew what was going on and yet Congress did not alter the Constitution nor did Jefferson advocate for it.

You are right and now you know the rest of the story based upon fact.

All those quotes makes clear the FF never envisioned individuals to have a right to a firearm. Furthermore, individual firearm use doesn’t equal having a right to that use. They make clear that those in military service to the state (via a militia) are whom they speak when they state “the People” as the 2nd amendment makes clear as well.

The Supreme Court agrees. Even Heller does not create a blanket right to personal firearm possession. It states that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

So we should also interpret the 1st as NOT including email, or text or even typewriter printed stuff. If it is not spoken hearshot, or written with a pen, then abolish it?

Make sense to me.

No the 1st amendment would not have covered email or text messaging without reinterpretation from the court.

Certainly the 1st amendment should cover those things but they weren’t covered until the court declared it so.

 

[TheResister]

All those quotes makes clear the FF never envisioned individuals to have a right to a firearm. Furthermore, individual firearm use doesn’t equal having a right to that use. They make clear that those in military service to the state (via a militia) are whom they speak when they state “the People” as the 2nd amendment makes clear as well.

The Supreme Court agrees. Even Heller does not create a blanket right to personal firearm possession. It states that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible.

Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size and can read in context can see that the founders were talking about privately held firearms. Next, you will be making that ridiculous argument that the Second Amendment is about protecting the government's "right."

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size and can read in context can see that the founders were talking about privately held firearms. Next, you will be making that ridiculous argument that the Second Amendment is about protecting the government's "right."

No they weren’t and your insults won’t change the facts.

The second amendment was ratified so that slave holding states could arm their militias to put down slave rebellions. Jefferson himself was a slave owner so with that context his statements on the issue come into light.

It had nothing to do with the individual right to own a firearm when it was ratified.

So yes the second amendment protects the state government’s rights.

Bogus: Slavery and the 2nd Amendment | RWU Law

From WABE, Atlanta's NPR affiliate: "The 'Right to Bear Arms'... Against Slave Revolts?" by Steve Goss

law.rwu.edu

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model [the theory of the Second Amendment predicated on the idea that 'the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself']. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions."

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

@Joe King

Abortion is an interstate commerce issue. People travel across state lines to pay for those services in states where it is legal with funds coming from banks and businesses that are frequently in other states (if it’s not a civil rights issue under amendments 1,5,10, & 14 given changes in SCOTUS interpretation). Under the interstate commerce clause The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has an “absolute” authority on these issues.

As I’ve pointed out previously, even without that objective fact of the interstate commerce clause, the 10th amendment makes clear that the people control what happens with abortion at the state and federal level via their legislative officials.

”States must find their protection from congressional regulation through the national political process, not through judicially defined spheres of unregulable state activity.“

The Constitution makes clear that NOTHING is out of the reach of the People, their legislators, and their government. If enough votes can be garnered to pass a law or ratify an amendment then at is all that matters so that the People retain ultimate authority over their country & government.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

that ridiculous argument that the Second Amendment is about protecting the government's "right."

heere heere

Abortion is an interstate commerce issue

No, it is only when you cross state lines that it is considered interstate commerce. Abortion itself has nothing do do with it

No the 1st amendment would not have covered email or text messaging without reinterpretation from the court.

Certainly the 1st amendment should cover those things but they weren’t covered until the court declared it so.

so you think that individuals rights to guns is a no no, but the right to email is ok, even though it has been proven several times that the 2nd applies to the individual?

 

[TheResister]

No they weren’t and your insults won’t change the facts.

The second amendment was ratified so that slave holding states could arm their militias to put down slave rebellions. Jefferson himself was a slave owner so with that context his statements on the issue come into light.

It had nothing to do with the individual right to own a firearm when it was ratified.

So yes the second amendment protects the state government’s rights.

Bogus: Slavery and the 2nd Amendment | RWU Law

From WABE, Atlanta's NPR affiliate: "The 'Right to Bear Arms'... Against Slave Revolts?" by Steve Goss

law.rwu.edu

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model [the theory of the Second Amendment predicated on the idea that 'the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry is to be prepared to fight the government itself']. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions."

EVERY state that addressed the Second Amendment disagrees with your assessment.

Your first argument is that "the people" equals a government right didn't hold water. If that were the case, the citizenry would not have a Freedom of Speech, the Press, or Religion as the First protects a Right of the people. Read the First Amendment. You tried to defend the decisions of the Supreme Court when, if you are a lawyer as you claim, know that the vetting process for federal judges comes by way of the American Bar Association. Again, that is a liberal organization. Finally, in that vein, you support the living document view in spite of what both Washington and Jefferson stated. So, now we come to this.

The best authority on what the Second Amendment means comes down first to what the man who wrote the Amendment had to say AND what any judges he nominated might say. Next, in order to determine what best evidence is would be the lower court holdings and what the FIRST United States Supreme Court holdings said that may impact the lower court holdings.

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, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Here is it abundantly clear that Madison is speaking of an individual Right. Surely you are not going to argue that "the people" of other nations meant that no other nation had a military, are you? AND, if you want to know who "the people" were, I would refer you to Dred Scott v. Sanford.

And what did the United States Supreme Court Justice, nominated by the man who wrote the Second Amendment have to say about what it means?

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

And what did the lower courts say?

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth.(1822) The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

In wording that holding the way they did, the United States Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings in the states. EVERY state that considered the Second Amendment disagrees with your assessment. Cruikshank makes it clear. The Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is not granted by the government. They exist without the Bill of Rights. This country was founded on the premise that you have unalienable Rights. The earliest court decisions held that those unalienable Rights are natural, inherent, preexisting, absolute, irrevocable and above the law. It wasn't until Heller that the high Court concocted a way around all that by using the word "unlimited" and that, sir, is due to the simple fact that they claim your Second Amendment Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment and such amendment is about government granted privileges and immunities, NOT unalienable Rights.

Take the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment out of the Heller decision and your Rights are absolute. The word absolute in a layman's context is a synonym for unlimited. They could only limit your Rights by incorporating them into an amendment that has the government as having bestowed upon you your Rights as contrasted to a Creator as per the Declaration of Independence.

If you feel insulted, my aim is not to pick on you, but to show you that I understand you are taking the position of pabulum puking prostitutes that destroyed our Republic. While they may have the power to do so, you and I know that they lack the authority. At some point the people (the citizenry) will recognize the current tyranny for what it is and if they find out what I know, then all bets are off.