Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

So i have been reading the constitution...

Second Amendment
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.

I see nowhere in this statement that you are supposed to go to public places and shoot at people because of different beliefs or just for your amusement...
Nothing in the 2nd Amendment prevents gun licensing & national gun registration. Yet NRA types pretend licensing and registration are tantamount to "TaKiNg AwAy OuR gUnS!!!"

It's interesting that the subject of the one-sentence 2nd Amendment is "a well regulated militia," yet most gun lovers have ZERO militia connection.

Constitutional originalists like to be guided by the wisdom of the late great Antonin Scalia, who opposed a "living" or "evolving" Constitution. Scalia said judges should look to what a law meant when it was adopted and not “to what society today thinks it ought to mean.” He also spoke of the meaning of the words as they were understood by average people at the time of adoption (of a legal text) AKA "original public meaning".

On that basis he opposed gay marriage, because that's not what marriage meant at the time marriage laws were adopted.

Which brings us to the question, what did it mean to "bear arms" in 1789? Well, you can't carry a cannon, so that's out. Bearable arms meant muskets and blunderbusses - muzzle loaders with a low refire rate. That's the sum total of the "original public meaning" of arms a person can bear.

Conservatives like to think of themselves as "keepers of the flame" of the "original Constitution." But in truth, they evolve it where they like, and try to prevent evolution where they don't like. Fact: you can't have it both ways; either the whole document evolves, or none of it, not even the Second Amendment, evolves.
redredred · M
@ElwoodBlues no but you’d have to read the rest of my response to understand what said. And the sentence I wrote about breakfast is the analogy I referred to so there’s no red herring involved; not the first logical or factual error you’ve made just today.
@redredred You're ducking the question of whether or not "militia" has anything to do with 2A, and the Miller Analogy Test is a weak attempt at an ad hominem fallacy. Scalia says "militia" can be ignored with respect to the 2A, superfluous text, do you agree?

Second, you're ducking the question of whether a citizen subjected to deadly force by the police has the right to respond to the police with deadly force. "Lawful arrest" is a red herring.

, the first amendment rights are limited to hand-operated, sheet fed, vertical letterpress printing.
FALSE. The 1A also applies to speech, as separate from the press.
redredred · M
@ElwoodBlues I haven’t ducked anything. I’ve answered your question. A “militia” is a separate cohort of the population from the “people”. The militia is, as indicated subject to regulation. The rights of the people are not to be infringed. If any question still remain for you on this point read the rest of the constitution and see what is meant by “the people” in any context.

Regarding police action, as I’ve already answered, resisting a lawful arrest is a crime. Being subject to a life-threatening criminal act by anyone, including the police, confers the right to use force, up to and including deadly force for protection.

And I still insist that the analogy I presented is absolutely sound and your objection is ideological not based is any flaw in the analogy.
redredred · M
There’s no conflict between being armed and observing the laws against assault and homicide.

As a crude observation once made by old woman I knew said,
“Every gal has the equipment to be a prostitute but that doesn’t mean every woman is whoring around”
@redredred i was saying that it is understated and you give me math
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@redredred Do you see anything in the 2nd Amendment that prevents national gun licensing plus national gun registration?
BigAssLeech · 31-35, M
Constitutional "originalists" aren't originalists at all. The "well regulated militia" was never meant to be the general public, but the National Guard. The current interpretation where everyone believes buying an AK-47 with no background checks and no common sense gun laws is a God-given right is relatively new
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
Keep it up with the inflammatory statements, straw man arguments and ridiculous contrivances and see how much changes!
@SumKindaMunster of course it is solicited....this is an open thread.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@DIABLISS Hi @DIABLISS hope your having a spectacular day!
@SumKindaMunster I am having a wonderful day...if it rains
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@OldMan70 i just read it. it took seconds. it should be re-written. and people who misinterpret it don't want to understand what it says
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@DIABLISS The amendment says arms it doesn't say firearms. I wonder how far you'd get if you buckled on a cutlass and walked down the street in an open carry state?
@ninalanyon i would imagine they would get as far as they wanted..."Hey Uncle George! that is one cool weapon you got there....what? AAAaaargh!"
Ceinwyn · 26-30, F
So that’s it? People are just going to pretend it’s the 1700s forever?
@SumKindaMunster you should try to be a professional trollster. however. I won't think about you until the next time you write something stupid. When i log outta here i never think about it again. seriously. i have important things on my plate. and i don't get agitated or upset. i don't even cry anymore. weird huh? especially about what some goofy man thinks that spends his entire day on here....trying desperately to make a connection through aggravation...you so funny!
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@DIABLISS Thanks, it's always interesting to hear how I come across.

I can assure you I am not interested in "connecting" with you, my motivation was entirely as I stated...

...you aren't going to get any traction or affect change on this subject adopting the attitudes and beliefs you have on the subject. That's all.

I'm sorry my practical advice is considered trolling..I've noted that to a lot of people a "troll" is merely someone with whom you disagree...you truly don't know or use the proper definition.
@SumKindaMunster troll.. a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content Internet trolls or you are some ugly monster that lives under a bridge
SW-User
Well there is a coming Civil war people need to be prepared for it. I'm not I'm old fuck it but it's coming..
pdockal · 56-60, M
Bearing arms never had to do with murder and never will
lacrossegirl25 · 22-25, F
Maybe it's the next amendment
@lacrossegirl25 I just think they need to rewrite the second amendment
Slade · 56-60, M
You actually read that to say something that idiotic?

Punch yourself in the face about 1,000 times
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
They choose to not read the “well regulated” part…it doesn’t exist.
@Fukfacewillie nothing in America is well regulated....that would cut short the all mighty dollar.

I honestly believe that there is a cure for everything in this country. But because we ...ahem, they would lose so much money that they make on Cancer and Aids etc...that these cures are hidden from us. it is just like Covid. There was no excuse in the world why it would take so long for a vaccination to be made in this day and age. But they were making money from it.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Stereoguy thank you sane person

 
Post Comment