Do You Support the 2nd Amendment or Not?

[CLAX1911]

The supreme court justice who receives outrageous gifts from his rich friends, Clarence Thomas.

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

 

[natman]

At the time the constitution was written muskets were being used. So an originalists should argue muskests should still be used. There is a huge gap between being understood and intended to be understood.

The Bill of Rights protects concepts, not specific technologies. This has been explained to you repeatedly, but let's try a few more examples. Freedom of Speech is protected over television and radio, even though those technologies didn't exist when the First Amendment was written. Freedom of search and seizure covers your computer, even though computers didn't exist when the Fourth Amenment was written. The Second Amendment does not say "muskets". It says "arms". By the same token as the previous examples, this means that an AR-15 is protected, even though they didn't exist when the amendment was written.

 

[braindrain]

Nope. None of the Constitution is one man's opinion.
The 2nd is about the militia.
The individual right to bear (not bare) arms is an Article 3 construct. As easily removed as abortion rights were.

I never said it was one mans opinion. Why lie.


No it’s about the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
No it’s not. You are simply wrong. As usual.

 

[braindrain]

At the time the constitution was written muskets were being used. So an originalists should argue muskests should still be used.There is a huge gap between being understood and intended to be understood.

You proving that you don’t actually know what the meaning of the word you are using is hilarious.
And all the more so as you prove this all the time.

 

[bongsaway]

What does that have to do with the second amendment?

Nothing, it has to do with he claims to be an originalist.

 

[bongsaway]

The Bill of Rights protects concepts, not specific technologies. This has been explained to you repeatedly, but let's try a few more examples. Freedom of Speech is protected over television and radio, even though those technologies didn't exist when the First Amendment was written. Freedom of search and seizure covers your computer, even though computers didn't exist when the Fourth Amenment was written. The Second Amendment does not say "muskets". It says "arms". By the same token as the previous examples, this means that an AR-15 is protected, even though they didn't exist when the amendment was written.

It doesn't mean any of the things you mentioned, it means the original intent has been bastardized. We are talking about what was available at the time, these guys didn't envision machine guns, which are illegal for most people. What arms were available when it was written?

This is why I have repeatedly said our constitution needs some serious updating.

 

[braindrain]

It doesn't mean any of the things you mentioned, it means the original intent has been bastardized. We are talking about what was available at the time, these guys didn't envision machine guns, which are illegal for most people. What arms were available when it was written?

This is why I have repeatedly said our constitution needs some serious updating.

So you think the 1st only covers what was available at the time. The 4th only protects your privacy from what existed at the time. Huh.

We both know you don’t think that and would be outraged if Trump said you have no freedom of speech on the internet.

But please let’s see you pretend to be honest and state you don’t have 1st amendment rights on your phone or internet.

 

[natman]

It doesn't mean any of the things you mentioned, it means the original intent has been bastardized. We are talking about what was available at the time, these guys didn't envision machine guns, which are illegal for most people. What arms were available when it was written?

Perhaps yet another repeat of what the Supreme Court said would break through your refusal to acknowledge reality:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. 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. "DC v Heller, page 8

A note about the word "frivolous" in this context. In court, making a frivolous argument is grounds for punishment, because the argument is obviously wrong and you're wasting the court's time making it.

Like your arguments.

You argue that constitutional amendments only cover the technology available at the time, thus only muskets are protected by the Second Amendment.

OK, no evasion, no BS, do you believe that the government can censor what you post here because computers and the internet didn't exist when the First Amendment was written?

Unless you can make a compelling argument that they can, it's time to face reality and drop your frivolous "only muskets" argument.

 

[bongsaway]

So you think the 1st only covers what was available at the time. The 4th only protects your privacy from what existed at the time. Huh.

We both know you don’t think that and would be outraged if Trump said you have no freedom of speech on the internet.

But please let’s see you pretend to be honest and state you don’t have 1st amendment rights on your phone or internet.

Originalism, which several justices on the high court embrace, aims to follow the Constitution as it would have been understood when it was written. You are twisting things, this is about the second amendment not the fourth.

Alito: Originalists must shed ‘insecure mindset’ causing worry over ‘desirable’ results​

Alito: Originalists must shed ‘insecure mindset’ causing worry over ‘desirable’ results

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito touched on two lightning rod cases Friday in explaining the pitfalls and promises of originalism. The conservative justice mentioned the Obergefell ruling that legalized same-sex marriage and the sweeping presidential immunity ruling the court handed down last...

www.yahoo.com

Seems like the originalist justices only think some things should be followed as written in the constitution and the second amendment is one of those things.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It doesn't mean any of the things you mentioned, it means the original intent has been bastardized. We are talking about what was available at the time, these guys didn't envision machine guns, which are illegal for most people.

No they aren’t.

What arms were available when it was written?

Cannons. Warships. Both were privately owned.

This is why I have repeatedly said our constitution needs some serious updating.

Yup. We need an amendment to make sure electronic communication is protected since it is not included in the 1A. And cars in the 4A.

 

[bongsaway]

No they aren’t.

Cannons. Warships. Both were privately owned.

Yup. We need an amendment to make sure electronic communication is protected since it is not included in the 1A. And cars in the 4A.

You gonna' carry around a cannon? Go for it. I wonder how you would look with a warship on your hip, crushed is my guess.

 

[bongsaway]

You gonna' carry around a cannon? Go for it. I wonder how you would look with a warship on your hip, crushed is my guess.

Ask the originalists, I'm not one of them.

 

[JMB1911A1]

You gonna' carry around a cannon? Go for it. I wonder how you would look with a warship on your hip, crushed is my guess.

You mentioned ownership than moved your motorized goalposts to bearing. Bad form, old sport.

Have you figured out that rights are not restricted to material solutions that existed at the time of ratification.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Ask the originalists, I'm not one of them.

Replying to yourself. I guess that happens when you get confused.

 

[natman]

You gonna' carry around a cannon? Go for it. I wonder how you would look with a warship on your hip, crushed is my guess.

Ask the originalists, I'm not one of them.

You're arguing with your own prior post, and evading as usual. Wow.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nothing, it has to do with he claims to be an originalist.

Who?

 

[bongsaway]

You mentioned ownership than moved your motorized goalposts to bearing. Bad form, old sport.

Have you figured out that rights are not restricted to material solutions that existed at the time of ratification.

Why do you keep asking me that stupid question over and over? I believe I have said and will continue to say, I am not an originalist like some of the justices claim to be.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why do you keep asking me that stupid question over and over? I believe I have said and will continue to say, I am not an originalist like some of the justices claim to be.

Why do you keep arguing from that position?

It's like it's your position people aren't going to pick up that you're pretending to be someone else.

 

[bongsaway]

Why do you keep arguing from that position?

It's like it's your position people aren't going to pick up that you're pretending to be someone else.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and if these justices believe the constitution should be followed as intended at the time, we would all have muskets, period. I'm not arguing any other points others have thrown into the mix.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy and if these justices believe the constitution should be followed as intended at the time,

I don't think anyone is saying we should follow only what the Constitution prescribed anachronistically.

That's not what original is means.

we would all have muskets, period. I'm not arguing any other points others have thrown into the mix.

This is your own brand of stupidity that you're applying to something you don't understand. Or something you're intentionally misinterpreting.

 

[bongsaway]

I don't think anyone is saying we should follow only what the Constitution prescribed anachronistically.

That's not what original is means.

This is your own brand of stupidity that you're applying to something you don't understand. Or something you're intentionally misinterpreting.

An originalist interpretation of the Constitution holds that its meaning is fixed and should be understood as it was at the time it was adopted by the Framers. Originalists believe the Constitution's meaning is not meant to change with societal evolution but can only be altered through the formal amendment process outlined in the Constitution itself. This approach seeks to discover the original, objective public meaning of the text, rather than allow for evolving judicial interpretations based on contemporary values or personal beliefs.

You were saying?

 

[CLAX1911]

An originalist interpretation of the Constitution

Not really interested in your boneheaded interpretation of originalism. It's one of the dumbest things you've ever posted and you should be ashamed of yourself

holds that its meaning is fixed and should be understood as it was at the time it was adopted by the Framers. Originalists believe the Constitution's meaning is not meant to change with societal evolution but can only be altered through the formal amendment process outlined in the Constitution itself. This approach seeks to discover the original, objective public meaning of the text, rather than allow for evolving judicial interpretations based on contemporary values or personal beliefs.

You were saying?

Your interpretation is dismissed as it's moronic.

 

[bongsaway]

Not really interested in your boneheaded interpretation of originalism. It's one of the dumbest things you've ever posted and you should be ashamed of yourself

Your interpretation is dismissed as it's moronic.

It's not my interpretation, I asked Google but you can keep saying it's mine if it makes you feel better.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not my interpretation, I asked Google but you can keep saying it's mine if it makes you feel better.

The idea that originalist means that you don't acknowledge any technological advancements past 1795 is strictly your interpretation if Google is saying that Google is a retard quit talking to it.

 

[RF667799]

The idea that originalist means that you don't acknowledge any technological advancements past 1795 is strictly your interpretation if Google is saying that Google is a retard quit talking to it.

He's not getting there's a difference between societal evolution and technological advancement.