Do You Support the 2nd Amendment or Not?

[CLAX1911]

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

He's being ridiculous as usual.

 

[JMB1911A1]

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

Give him a a couple of days.

Your interpretation is dismissed as it's moronic.

 

[braindrain]

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.

Ahh so again you think you proving that you don’t actually know what the term originalism means is a convincing argument.

Watching you fail so epically over and over is so much fun.

 

[braindrain]

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

You doing ok here. Seem to really be having some issues.

 

[CLAX1911]

You doing ok here. Seem to really be having some issues.

Yeah he's just a misrepresenting originalism standard dishonestly.

 

[natman]

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.

Originalism means that the constitution is interpreted using the meanings as it was understood when it was written. For example, if the word "gay" were used, it would represent the meaning contemporary with the Bill of Rights of "happy", not the modern meaning of "homosexual". You have tried and failed to twist Heller to mean "only technology of the 18th century is protected" and to blame Heller on "originalist judges". Both are false.

I gave you a crystal clear Supreme Court quote from Heller. If that's not enough, I'll give you another Supreme Court quote, this one from Caetano v Massachusetts. In this case the Massachusetts State Supreme Court upheld Caetano's conviction for owning a stun gun because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment”.

This argument was unanimously rejected by SCOTUS, including such "right wing originalists" as Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added by Justice Alito). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Caetano, Justice Alito's concurrence.

So that should be proof enough for anyone with an IQ over room temperature or even a scrap of intellectual honesty that the Second Amendment does NOT only apply to muskets. The question is whether you fall into either category.

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.

You're the one who thinks the second amendment somehow operates completely differently than the other amendments. Or at least you would be except you have yet to work up the courage to answer the question that you've repeatedly ignored:

If the second amendment only protects muskets, does the first amendment only protect documents written with a quill pen?

 

[bongsaway]

Originalism means that the constitution is interpreted using the meanings as it was understood when it was written. For example, if the word "gay" were used, it would represent the meaning contemporary with the Bill of Rights of "happy", not the modern meaning of "homosexual". You have tried and failed to twist Heller to mean "only technology of the 18th century is protected" and to blame Heller on "originalist judges". Both are false.

I gave you a crystal clear Supreme Court quote from Heller. If that's not enough, I'll give you another Supreme Court quote, this one from Caetano v Massachusetts. In this case the Massachusetts State Supreme Court upheld Caetano's conviction for owning a stun gun because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,”

This argument was unanimously rejected by SCOTUS, including such "right wing originalists" as Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added by Justice Alito). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Caetano, Justice Alito's concurrence.

So that should be proof enough for anyone with an IQ over room temperature or even a scrap of intellectual honesty that the Second Amendment does NOT only apply to muskets. The question is whether you fall into either category.


You're the one who thinks the second amendment somehow operates completely differently than the other amendments. Or at least you would be if you could only work up the courage to answer the question that you've repeatedly ignored:

If the second amendment only protects muskets, does the first amendment only protect documents written with a quill pen?

Let me repeat myself at the risk of appearing rude. I'm not an orginalist and I'm only speaking about the second amendment, period, not the fourth the first or the fifth. Keep trying.

 

[natman]

Let me repeat myself at the risk of appearing rude. I'm not an orginalist and I'm only speaking about the second amendment, period, not the fourth the first or the fifth. Keep trying.

It's quite clear that you're only speaking about the Second Amendment. It's just your bullshit attempt to evande how spectacularly wrong you are about it.

Got any comment about the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision that definitively proves your claim that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is completely, totally and irredeemably wrong?

Here, I'll repeat it for you:

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added by Justice Alito). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Caetano, Justice Alito's concurrence.

 

[bongsaway]

It's quite clear that you're only speaking about the Second Amendment. It's just your bullshit attempt to evande how spectacularly wrong you are about it.

Got any comment about the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision that definitively proves your claim that the Second Amendment only protects muskets is completely, totally and irredeemably wrong?

Here, I'll repeat it for you:

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (emphasis added by Justice Alito). It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point. Caetano, Justice Alito's concurrence.

SCOTUS has been known to make horrible rulings, no? Was that a republican controlled court that made that ruling? It's one court's opinion versus another, no? Slavery was fine for many years until another court decided it wasn't. So the originalists don't really want an original meaning after all.

 

[CLAX1911]

SCOTUS has been known to make horrible rulings, no? Was that a republican controlled court that made that ruling? It's one court's opinion versus another, no? Slavery was fine for many years until another court decided it wasn't. So the originalists don't really want an original meaning after all.

You're mistaken original meaning of word anachronism.

 

[natman]

SCOTUS has been known to make horrible rulings, no?

Yes. This wasn't one of them.

Was that a republican controlled court that made that ruling?

What part of UNANIMOUS is too difficult for you?

It's one court's opinion versus another, no? Slavery was fine for many years until another court decided it wasn't.

Only if you can come up with a Supreme Court decision to support your position. Until then it's just more of your random nonsense.

So the originalists don't really want an original meaning after all.

Pure unadulterated gibberish.