Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guilluamezenz

There are ideas in the constitution that are trapped in time and place.

Recommended Posts

 
 
Share this article
 

There are ideas in the constitution that transcend time and place.  The principle of sovereignty of the people is an example.

There are ideas in the constitution that are trapped in time and place.  The nod to the slave power is an example.  That appeasement was backward looking and sectional.  Original intent not always is gold; sometimes it’s sulfur.

The Second Amendment did not enable slavery but still is trapped in an eighteenth-century, frontier society.  Modern technology, society, and governance have eclipsed anything that the Second Amendment could have been intended to deal with.  The modern world has turned Second Amendment original intent into an unintentional reductio ad absurdum.    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/26/1744836/-Do-Not-Argue-Original-Intent-with-NRA-Apologists the puckle gun was NOT A MACHINE GUN! IT WASNT EVEN CLOSE AND NO ONE USED THEM!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:
 
 
Share this article
 

There are ideas in the constitution that transcend time and place.  The principle of sovereignty of the people is an example.

There are ideas in the constitution that are trapped in time and place.  The nod to the slave power is an example.  That appeasement was backward looking and sectional.  Original intent not always is gold; sometimes it’s sulfur.

The Second Amendment did not enable slavery but still is trapped in an eighteenth-century, frontier society.  Modern technology, society, and governance have eclipsed anything that the Second Amendment could have been intended to deal with.  The modern world has turned Second Amendment original intent into an unintentional reductio ad absurdum.    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/26/1744836/-Do-Not-Argue-Original-Intent-with-NRA-Apologists the puckle gun was NOT A MACHINE GUN! IT WASNT EVEN CLOSE AND NO ONE USED THEM!

Time is stationary genetic details as populating the moment are never the same as reached so far.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2A is for the people to resist the gov't.

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, KneeJerk said:

2A is for the people to resist the gov't.

kj

Government is vocabulary allowing those governing the literal right to do so as figuratively practiced historically over relative positions of the population currently alive as historically staged as realities of humans ignoring now is the only time a reproduction gets conception to decomposed , regardless aborted before birth or lived long enough to become 1 of 16 great great grandparents to each of their great great grandchildren being 1/16 their DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2019 at 12:04 PM, guilluamezenz said:
 
 
Share this article
 

There are ideas in the constitution that transcend time and place.  The principle of sovereignty of the people is an example.

There are ideas in the constitution that are trapped in time and place.  The nod to the slave power is an example.  That appeasement was backward looking and sectional.  Original intent not always is gold; sometimes it’s sulfur.

The Second Amendment did not enable slavery but still is trapped in an eighteenth-century, frontier society.  Modern technology, society, and governance have eclipsed anything that the Second Amendment could have been intended to deal with.  The modern world has turned Second Amendment original intent into an unintentional reductio ad absurdum.    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/26/1744836/-Do-Not-Argue-Original-Intent-with-NRA-Apologists 

 

 

IF that is true, then what is necessary is an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  If you do not do that, then your position has zero legitimacy.  You can't ignore the Constitution just because you find it inconvenient.

 

On 12/3/2019 at 12:04 PM, guilluamezenz said:

the puckle gun was NOT A MACHINE GUN! IT WASNT EVEN CLOSE AND NO ONE USED THEM!

 

You miss the point.

 

The Puckle Gun (and a laundry list of other firearms designs at the time of the Founding) proved that rapid-fire repeating arms were not only possible but a growing technology, and the time would come when they would be widespread and plentiful; so the argument the Founders "couldn't have imagined" a rapid-fire rifle is nonsensical in the extreme.  They STILL protected the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS in the Constitution; even though aware of the potential of future arms development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:
Related imageImage result for drone strike footage gifImage result for drone strike footage gifImage result for drone strike footage gifImage result for drone strike footage gifImage result for drone strike footage gifRelated imageImage result for abrams tank gifRelated imageImage result for abrams tank gifImage result for right gif

 

All arguments made by people utterly ignorant of the limitations of the above illustrated equipment as well as the proper tactics of asymmetrical warfare.... to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the American military would NOT support a tyrannical government, nor would they use their weapons against their fellow citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to move on. Be responsive to the need on the 21 century

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spartan said:

 

IF that is true, then what is necessary is an amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  If you do not do that, then your position has zero legitimacy.  You can't ignore the Constitution just because you find it inconvenient.

 

 

You miss the point.

 

The Puckle Gun (and a laundry list of other firearms designs at the time of the Founding) proved that rapid-fire repeating arms were not only possible but a growing technology, and the time would come when they would be widespread and plentiful; so the argument the Founders "couldn't have imagined" a rapid-fire rifle is nonsensical in the extreme.  They STILL protected the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS in the Constitution; even though aware of the potential of future arms development.

or we just ignore it, let me say this for 150 years the supreme court ruled there was no individual right it was only under tremednous pressure from the kook right it was changed and in an illegal way in my mind   

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

 

 

In its 2002 decision Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals provided a very detailed, extensive, and well researched examination of the historical record surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment.  Although Silveira v. Lockyer would overturned by Messrs. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy in 2008, the 9th Circuit's outstanding research surpasses both Scalia's NRA talking points that passes for a Supreme Court decision, as well as Justice Stevens' far more persuasive dissent.  This diary provides a summary of the Ninth Circuit's research that led to that court's conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of the states to form militias, and was not intended to allow anyone and everyone without restriction to buy whatever guns may be on the market.  I hope, in a future diary, to analyze Scalia's Heller opinion and illustrate why Scalia is wrong and a hypocrite to claim that he is governed by original intent.

For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right “to keep and bear Arms” but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view. The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time.  https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/politics-changed-the-reading-of-the-second-amendmentand-can-change-it-again?verso=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

All arguments made by people utterly ignorant of the limitations of the above illustrated equipment as well as the proper tactics of asymmetrical warfare.... to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the American military would NOT support a tyrannical government, nor would they use their weapons against their fellow citizens.

if that is true why do we even need to be armed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

All arguments made by people utterly ignorant of the limitations of the above illustrated equipment as well as the proper tactics of asymmetrical warfare.... to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the American military would NOT support a tyrannical government, nor would they use their weapons against their fellow citizens.

who said anything about your army i was refering to our army Image result for people's liberation army gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zaro said:

We need to move on. Be responsive to the need on the 21 century

 

Fine.  Move on.

 

The right to bear arms is just as relevant to today as it was in the days of the Founding; if not more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

or we just ignore it, let me say this for 150 years the supreme court ruled there was no individual right it was only under tremednous pressure from the kook right it was changed and in an illegal way in my mind   

 

That is a lie based on revisionist history.  EVERY Supreme Court ruling of the 18th and 19th Centuries supported the Individual rights position.  That is historical FACT.

 

6 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

 

Burger was the fraud.  As were the judges on the Ninth Circuit that ignored historical precedent and the clearly documented Intent of the Founders in the Silveira case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

All arguments made by people utterly ignorant of the limitations of the above illustrated equipment as well as the proper tactics of asymmetrical warfare.... to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the American military would NOT support a tyrannical government, nor would they use their weapons against their fellow citizens.

as a jew i have a more rational perspective i have family that fought in the Warsaw uprising well they are dead but they were related  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

in Israel when you jpoin the army which everyone does but the muslims and the Image result for haredi jewsHarudi, private citizens as a rule are dscouraged by strict laws, we defense our nation via the army which we trust because it is our sons and daughters , we don't let crazy people run around with machine guns, what sort  of crazy culture even allows that? it makes zero sense, and stop bringing up the second amendment, it just makes you look like a retard, the second amendment only gave states the right to form militias and is this obsolete, what sort of mix of stupid and crazy deny that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

if that is true why do we even need to be armed?

 

Stupid question, in the face of criminal violence and the growing authoritarianism of those of a certain political bent.

 

8 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

who said anything about your army i was refering to our army Image result for people's liberation army gif

 

Don't make me laugh.  We'd wipe the field clean of your slave soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Fine.  Move on.

 

The right to bear arms is just as relevant to today as it was in the days of the Founding; if not more so.

no it isnt that again is the stupidest thing a person could say in israel we have an an amry , and we trust it because it is our children Image result for israeli army to me to hear a gown man say he doesnt trust his army or police is not just disresectful it is treasonous, this is the sort of talk you tolerate from a teenager who is in anrchist phase, they all do that, but to hear this sort of rant from and adult? it just shows how bankrupt and sad american culture and americans really are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

as a jew i have a more rational perspective i have family that fought in the Warsaw uprising well they are dead but they were related  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

 

...And you dishonor the memory of those brave souls with every rancid word you post.

 

2 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

we don't let crazy people run around with machine guns, what sort  of crazy culture even allows that? it makes zero sense, and stop bringing up the second amendment, it just makes you look like a retard, the second amendment only gave states the right to form militias and is this obsolete, what sort of mix of stupid and crazy deny that?

 

 

NO the Second Amendment does NOT "give states the right to form militias", you ignorant phuck.  

 

People have rights.  States have POWERS.  The Second Amendment protects the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and a totalitarian.  Your Jewish ancestors would spit in your face, Adolph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

Stupid question, in the face of criminal violence and the growing authoritarianism of those of a certain political bent.

 

 

Don't make me laugh.  We'd wipe the field clean of your slave soldiers.

good to hear over confidence is a weapon in our advantage. slaves?  talk to chinese people thye love ther ination and support their goverment , half you population wants civil war! who has a better system? https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-young-americans-embracing-socialism-b051907a-87a8-4f61-9e6e-0db75f7edc4a.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spartan said:

 

...And you dishonor the memory of those brave souls with every rancid word you post.

 

 

NO the Second Amendment does NOT "give states the right to form militias", you ignorant phuck.  

 

People have rights.  States have POWERS.  The Second Amendment protects the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and a totalitarian.  Your Jewish ancestors would spit in your face, Adolph.

they arent your people you have zero right to make any comment zero, see insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting a diffrent result

the israel army is  much more effective than civlians with black market guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, guilluamezenz said:

no it isnt that again is the stupidest thing a person could say in israel we have an an amry , and we trust it because it is our children

 

For a child of Israeli, you sure do like the policies of Hitler.

 

1 minute ago, guilluamezenz said:

 to me to hear a gown man say he doesnt trust his army or police is not just disresectful it is treasonous, this is the sort of talk you tolerate from a teenager who is in anrchist phase, they all do that, but to hear this sort of rant from and adult? it just shows how bankrupt and sad american culture and americans really are

 

I love my country... but I don't trust my government.

 

I was a law enforcement officer, and most of my friends are current and former military and police, and all would resist orders to strip the people of their rights... as would most currently serving First Responders.

 

You see, WE understand Freedom and Liberty, and how precious they are and deserving of being defended.

 

You surrender your freedom for security, and show what kind of coward you really are; so spare me your self-righteous lectures.  You are deserving of nothing but contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

good to hear over confidence is a weapon in our advantage. slaves?  talk to chinese people thye love ther ination and support their goverment , half you population wants civil war! who has a better system? https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-young-americans-embracing-socialism-b051907a-87a8-4f61-9e6e-0db75f7edc4a.html

 

Not overconfidence.  Just commitment and determination to see Liberty protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

...And you dishonor the memory of those brave souls with every rancid word you post.

 

 

NO the Second Amendment does NOT "give states the right to form militias", you ignorant phuck.  

 

People have rights.  States have POWERS.  The Second Amendment protects the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, and anyone who claims otherwise is a liar and a totalitarian.  Your Jewish ancestors would spit in your face, Adolph.

well yes thats what supreme court justices  said it did for 150  and i know i'm related to Louis Brandeis son people like me actually sat and ruled on the constitution, you aren't smart enough to even question us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

they arent your people you have zero right to make any comment zero,

 

Wrong, Adolph.  I have a Constitutional right to make any comment I choose, so phuck off.

 

2 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

see insanity is doing the same thng over and over and expecting a diffrent result

 

...And despite reams of history of disarmed people being brutalized by their governments.... you keep advocating for insanity.

 

2 minutes ago, guilluamezenz said:

the israel army is  much more effective than civlians with black market guns

 

LOL!  I have a lot of respect for the IDF, and have even trained alongside some of its members.  Remember your comment about overconfidence??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

 

For a child of Israeli, you sure do like the policies of Hitler.

 

 

I love my country... but I don't trust my government.

 

I was a law enforcement officer, and most of my friends are current and former military and police, and all would resist orders to strip the people of their rights... as would most currently serving First Responders.

 

You see, WE understand Freedom and Liberty, and how precious they are and deserving of being defended.

 

You surrender your freedom for security, and show what kind of coward you really are; so spare me your self-righteous lectures.  You are deserving of nothing but contempt.

hitler made it much easier for the average german to have a gun , did you know that, of course if you were a yid, you couldn't have a gun 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spartan said:

 

Wrong, Adolph.  I have a Constitutional right to make any comment I choose, so phuck off.

 

 

...And despite reams of history of disarmed people being brutalized by their governments.... you keep advocating for insanity.

 

 

LOL!  I have a lot of respect for the IDF, and have even trained alongside some of its members.  Remember your comment about overconfidence??

we'd beat you in a heart beat we have the best army in the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...