In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

JohnR

03-01-2018, 03:51 PM

My point is simple theses are the people that set the public face to the gun issue .. not Normal gun owners they are being dragged alongside people like this and people like wayne lapierre or Dana Loesch? and others with their outrageous claims .. and how they address gun violence with tired cliches.. and an intractable postition

No - this is what a lot of people WANT to believe 2A supporters are. The same people that can't figure out how dialogue between both sides breaks down so fast (OK - they are not surpised, probably welcome it.

"We are not going to take your guns"

Then proposes legislation banning pretty much anything not a lever action.

Be part of the solution or the solution will be made with out you..

Ahem, I'll repeat; "We are not going to take your guns"

Then proposes legislation banning pretty much anything not a lever action or powderloaded.

I am not anti gun I am anti the 2a guys say I can have what i want when I want it . ( and why should I have to wait 1 day or 30 days to buy a gun or are against Gun Registration .. or pay for your own background check or have a different class licenses for fire arm Classes.. we do it with a drivers Licenses for things from buses to tractor trailers . it works why not with guns ?

Because Driving is a Privileged, not a right.

No, these are the people that the media is Trying to make the public face of the gun issue.....

^^^^^^ This

But I guarantee you it's being reported in some countries like everyday American life. Just like we do to them...
Being reported how we are, yes. But give me examples of how it is the same the other way??

PaulS

03-01-2018, 03:55 PM

Unions, companies, churches etc. shouldn't be allowed to make political donations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-01-2018, 06:00 PM

No - this is what a lot of people WANT to believe 2A supporters are. The same people that can't figure out how dialogue between both sides breaks down so fast (OK - they are not surpised, probably welcome it.

"We are not going to take your guns"

Then proposes legislation banning pretty much anything not a lever action.

Ahem, I'll repeat; "We are not going to take your guns"

Then proposes legislation banning pretty much anything not a lever action or powderloaded.

Because Driving is a Privileged, not a right.

^^^^^^ This

Being reported how we are, yes. But give me examples of how it is the same the other way??

I see your in the they are going to take are guns side of the argument and the 2a says I can have what ever gun I want

Why do 2a guys ignore the well regulated militia part of the 2a

zimmy

03-01-2018, 06:11 PM

.

Ahem, I'll repeat; "We are not going to take your guns"

Then proposes legislation banning pretty much anything not a lever action or powderloaded.

What legislation are you talking about? Never heard of it. I was recently thinking that I would support that kind of thing. I would want none of the bs pelletized powder garbage they use today. When I was a kid we would shoot my dad's musket. Ram the paper wad down the barrel, drop in a lead ball. Now that took some skill. None of the bs rifling that makes it go straight so anyone can shoot. Took instinct, intuition to get it where you wanted it. Would put everyone on equal ground.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RIROCKHOUND

03-01-2018, 08:14 PM

I’d get a blessing my rods if I would be guaranteed a 50...

I have bigger headscatching over Billy Graham lying in state in the Capitol. And that isn’t a knock on him as a man or his faith, but I is a bit odd...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slipknot

03-01-2018, 09:19 PM

What legislation are you talking about? Never heard of it. I was recently thinking that I would support that kind of thing. I would want none of the bs pelletized powder garbage they use today. When I was a kid we would shoot my dad's musket. Ram the paper wad down the barrel, drop in a lead ball. Now that took some skill. None of the bs rifling that makes it go straight so anyone can shoot. Took instinct, intuition to get it where you wanted it. Would put everyone on equal ground.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you did not look
The congressman from RI just put up a doozy. There are others that do plenty on infringing also

Equal ground huh? Kinda like fish finders and side scan?
Life is about choices, you choose to challenge yourself your way and I’ll do it my way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slipknot

03-01-2018, 09:24 PM

I see your in the they are going to take are guns side of the argument and the 2a says I can have what ever gun I want

Why do 2a guys ignore the well regulated militia part of the 2a
“They” are only going to take something if we allow it. They certainly are trying, been chipping away at infringing for close to a century.

Is your question on militia just you thinking out loud or are you actually asking? I figured you know the wording of militia means the people, and that includes you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-01-2018, 10:32 PM

I guess you did not look
The congressman from RI just put up a doozy. There are others that do plenty on infringing also

Equal ground huh? Kinda like fish finders and side scan?
Life is about choices, you choose to challenge yourself your way and I’ll do it my way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I just read the bill. I don't see anything in it about lever action, black powder, any of that stuff. I want more challenge for the guy in the hotel window in Vegas or in the first grade classroom. I forgot to mention flints. Everything should be flintlock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR

03-01-2018, 10:39 PM

I just read the bill. I don't see anything in it about lever action, black powder, any of that stuff. I want more challenge for the guy in the hotel window in Vegas or in the first grade classroom. I forgot to mention flints. Everything should be flintlock.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is all that is left. They statement indicates anything semi-automatic, hand gun or rifle, not a 22.

scottw

03-02-2018, 07:03 AM

I guess you did not look
The congressman from RI just put up a doozy. There are others that do plenty on infringing also

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cicciline ran a poll asking his constituents if they wanted more gun legislation to reduce gun violence.....the poll ran 76% NO to 24% YES until Cicciline had it taken down early because he didn't get the results he was hoping for....then he introduced the legislation anyway....

zimmy

03-02-2018, 08:45 AM

Cicciline ran a poll asking his constituents if they wanted more gun legislation to reduce gun violence.....the poll ran 76% NO to 24% YES until Cicciline had it taken down early because he didn't get the results he was hoping for....then he introduced the legislation anyway....
A Twitter poll? Now that is scientific!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-02-2018, 08:49 AM

That is all that is left. They statement indicates anything semi-automatic, hand gun or rifle, not a 22.

I don't particularly agree with everything in the bill, but the way it reads, you could purchase a semi automatic rifle with a fixed magazine that holds 10 rounds. That isn't a flintlock.

By the way, one of the arguments against magazine size limits is that they don't change anything. You can duct tape a couple together in opposite directions and pull it out and flip it in two seconds. Fixed magazine does address that aspect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-02-2018, 08:51 AM

Cicciline ran a poll asking his constituents if they wanted more gun legislation to reduce gun violence.....the poll ran 76% NO to 24% YES until Cicciline had it taken down early because he didn't get the results he was hoping for....then he introduced the legislation anyway....

He introduced Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 in the U.S. House.

yea ok he based his legislation on a FB poll

spence

03-02-2018, 09:21 AM

A Twitter poll? Now that is scientific!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
At least we can rest assured the debate has been settled.

wdmso

03-02-2018, 11:43 AM

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

And the crowd REPUBLICANS AND THE NRA go crazy

And for the 10000 thousand time we will be told what he ment to say

Sea Dangles

03-02-2018, 11:46 AM

If Trump can actually get some new restrictions on acquiring firearms my guess is that you will still be whining about something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-02-2018, 12:07 PM

If Trump can actually get some new restrictions on acquiring firearms my guess is that you will still be whining about something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very intuitive. There is no shortage, eh comrade?

detbuch

03-02-2018, 12:50 PM

wdmso

03-02-2018, 12:50 PM

If Trump can actually get some new restrictions on acquiring firearms my guess is that you will still be whining about something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems this post went over your head

Trump made the statement

2a guys flipped out

Trumps backed away from statement #1

So if pointing out the flip flops from his mouth is just whining clearly you don't care what this man say's or what he does

wdmso

03-02-2018, 12:51 PM

Fox News told him to say it.

Your catching on quick

detbuch

03-02-2018, 01:19 PM

Your catching on quick

I'm beginning to wonder if you, your version of Fox News, and Trump are working in tandem. Y'all say one thing at a given time and contradict it at another time.

Sounds like a conspiracy . . . Y'all really want to disinform us to create mass confusion and then sneak in and bring in a new world order, don't ya?

Jim in CT

03-02-2018, 02:17 PM

Your catching on quick

Foxnews told Trump to support the idea of confiscating legally-acquired property, before the individual has received due process? That's what you're saying?

Of course the 2A people went berserk. If today, we can take away your second amendment rights without giving you the benefit of due process, maybe tomorrow someone can take away another constitutional right of yours, without due process, maybe freedom of speech? Or protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

wdmso

03-02-2018, 03:07 PM

Russian politician Alexander Torshin said his ties to the NRA provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.

These revelations come amid news that the FBI is investigating whether Torshin, the deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, illegally funneled money to the NRA to assist the Trump campaign in 2016,

wdmso

03-02-2018, 03:23 PM

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

QUOTE=scottw;1138130]PARKLAND, Fla. — Broward County deputies received at least 18 calls warning them about Nikolas Cruz from 2008 to 2017, including concerns that he "planned to shoot up the school" and other threats and acts of violence before he was accused of killing 17 people at a high school.

The warnings, made by concerned people close to Cruz, came in phone calls to the Broward County Sheriff's Office, records show. At least five callers mentioned concern over his access to weapons, according to the documents. None of those warnings led to direct intervention.

In February 2016, neighbors told police that they were worried he “planned to shoot up the school” after seeing alarming pictures on Instagram showing Cruz brandishing guns.

About two months later, an unidentified caller told police that Cruz had been collecting guns and knives. The caller was “concerned (Cruz) will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making,” according to call details released by the Sheriff's

My statement

The NRA and 2nd supporters would have pitched a fit if they took his guns over instargram, or Internet posts yelling confiscation or FREEDOM of speech. .. they are now blaming everyone else . To insulate them from the laws they supported which gave assistance and legal standing for Cruz to have what he had .... law enforcement was toothless until he committed a crime ...

And I was told UMMMMN NO they would not if they took Cruzs guns based on a callers concerns ... then RI passes a Red flag measure to head off possible shooters and the response was as suggestec

wdmso

03-02-2018, 03:25 PM

Foxnews told Trump to support the idea of confiscating legally-acquired property, before the individual has received due process? That's what you're saying?

Of course the 2A people went berserk. If today, we can take away your second amendment rights without giving you the benefit of due process, maybe tomorrow someone can take away another constitutional right of yours, without due process, maybe freedom of speech? Or protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

Told him to change his mind

Jim in CT

03-02-2018, 03:39 PM

Told him to change his mind

Gotcha.

Well if they told him to change his imnd, I would be in agreement. Due process has to come before we strip constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from US citizens. The feds can't take something away, and then we petition to get that freedom back.

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

wdmso

03-02-2018, 05:35 PM

Gotcha.

Well if they told him to change his imnd, I would be in agreement. Due process has to come before we strip constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from US citizens. The feds can't take something away, and then we petition to get that freedom back.

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

It's a slippery slope ...due process ignored the Fla shooter ,,, I know in Mass a 209a protection order or admission to a detox voluntary or in voluntary gets a knock at your door to secure all weapons .... it's automatic . You can get them back via Due process ... but they can't just take them based on a unnamed caller or because some thinks your weird..

so whos rights gets priority those of a possible shooter or those of his potential victum's ?..

Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due process

Be inconvenienced because your dead no due process

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected .

And I don't buy that the freedom to own a gun is absolute. Or with out restriction
Or the fantasy this leads to taking people's guns .... it's just not based in facts

Slipknot

03-02-2018, 05:48 PM

Due process has to come before we strip constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms from US citizens.

Apparently not for ALL US citizens because we behind enemy lines in the peoples republic of Massachusetts must have had our due process by legislation with regards to owning a piece of plastic known as a bump stock. Most every firearms permit holder got their letter in the mail. I felt like mailing it back to them with a rubber band or a belt loop(seeing how they can accomplish the same effect), but we all know passing the law was not about safety but about optics and rushing to feel good about doing something. And Trump is just like them with his stupid statement about ignoring due process.
There is no shortage of tyrants in this state.
Judges that ignore or make their own interpretations of the Constitution are the ones who are dangerous to our country.

Slipknot

03-02-2018, 05:58 PM

It's a slippery slope ...
Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due processafter paying the storage house the outrageous fees that cost more than the guns are worth! what a nice profitable scam for them, I wonder how they got that privilege

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected . (ya in an ideal world maybe)

...

spence

03-02-2018, 06:07 PM

Apparently not for ALL US citizens because we behind enemy lines in the peoples republic of Massachusetts must have had our due process by legislation with regards to owning a piece of plastic known as a bump stock. Most every firearms permit holder got their letter in the mail. I felt like mailing it back to them with a rubber band or a belt loop(seeing how they can accomplish the same effect), but we all know passing the law was not about safety but about optics and rushing to feel good about doing something. And Trump is just like them with his stupid statement about ignoring due process.
There is no shortage of tyrants in this state.
Judges that ignore or make their own interpretations of the Constitution are the ones who are dangerous to our country.
Behind enemy lines?

MA is in the bottom third for unemployment, the second lowest firearm death rate of all states, ranked the best schools in the nation etc... etc...

Keep this nonsense up and I'm not going to show you the amazingly tight corners on the giant picture frame I just made.

wdmso

03-03-2018, 08:34 AM

...a bump stock is not a gun. No different then AR dosn't mean assault rifle.. >>>

so your rights were never violated by the banning of bump stocks

spence

03-03-2018, 09:45 AM

...a bump stock is not a gun. No different then AR dosn't mean assault rifle.. >>>

so your rights were never violated by the banning of bump stocks
And their rights wouldn't be violated by banning assault weapons either. Even in the Heller case the SC didn't say the government couldn't ban certain types of weapons.

PaulS

03-03-2018, 12:05 PM

Just wait till some states ban ammunition because they're not guns LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slipknot

03-03-2018, 03:16 PM

An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.

The argument about modern firearms are not what the 2A was for is horsecrap, The British had what the people had, and when they wanted to disarm the people, the revolution began. You can believe whatever you want about what can be banned or should be banned and we are never going to agree apparently. I know what is right and what is wrong. Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.

If the country goes over the ledge to socialism, that is when you will finally realize you are left with Communism and wonder how it happened.

spence

03-03-2018, 06:17 PM

Property that was attained while legal and then banned and confiscated absolutely DOES violate rights. And if it ever goes to court before a judge that is not a liberal constitutional tyrant, then it would be overturned.
1) Doesn't mean you can't ban new sales and

2) Doesn't mean you can't add registration requirements and sale transfer requirements onto existing weapons.

Slipknot

03-03-2018, 06:55 PM

Correct
I didn’t say it did

Banning something for future is one thing
Banning it retroactively is another.

States are allowed to put restrictions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-03-2018, 10:49 PM

Did a bunch of ranchers armed with AR-15's win a standoff with the feds? yes they did.
.

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

03-04-2018, 07:02 AM

That is kind of a stretch. Had the Feds wanted to win the standoff, it would have been over it seconds. They didn't want the repercussions of doing it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not to mention the ranchers were wrong to begin with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-04-2018, 08:45 AM

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/03/01/tucker-carlson-trump-betraying-promises-guns-imagine-obama-said-take-guns-first/

I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'

“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

spence

03-04-2018, 08:58 AM

“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^
Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

JohnR

03-04-2018, 10:28 AM

I don't particularly agree with everything in the bill, but the way it reads, you could purchase a semi automatic rifle with a fixed magazine that holds 10 rounds. That isn't a flintlock.

By the way, one of the arguments against magazine size limits is that they don't change anything. You can duct tape a couple together in opposite directions and pull it out and flip it in two seconds. Fixed magazine does address that aspect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you read it?

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

And the crowd REPUBLICANS AND THE NRA go crazy

And for the 10000 thousand time we will be told what he ment to say

So you would be OK with it?

Of course the 2A people went berserk. If today, we can take away your second amendment rights without giving you the benefit of due process, maybe tomorrow someone can take away another constitutional right of yours, without due process, maybe freedom of speech? Or protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

I don't like guns being in the hands of weird people. But I don't like the idea of ignoring the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like at the moment, either. Neither should you. Because if we can ignore it when we feel like it, then it serves no purpose.

For a lot of people, it is easy to strip away Constitutional Rights. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right?

Due process must come first. The constitution could not be more clear. You disagree?

Yeh - not hearing much (as we should) about the deeper investigations that need to be done.

It's a slippery slope ...due process ignored the Fla shooter ,,, I know in Mass a 209a protection order or admission to a detox voluntary or in voluntary gets a knock at your door to secure all weapons .... it's automatic . You can get them back via Due process ... but they can't just take them based on a unnamed caller or because some thinks your weird..

So this slippery slope is OK?

We do need a good examination on how to protect rights and balance the need for some people not to have access to firearms (and removal if needed) due to disqualifying events (mental health/Drug Abuse/Criminal Records) and not limit those that are not disqualifying.

The FL shooter Cruz wasn't failed by Due process? The students at MSD were failed by the lack of any ATTEMPT of ANY PROCESS by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level.

so whos rights gets priority those of a possible shooter or those of his potential victum's ?..

Be inconvenienced. In court to get your guns back due process

Be inconvenienced because your dead no due process

The possibility of abuse exists that's why we have courts .. reasonable people who have nothing to hide and operate with in the rules won't be effected .

The reasonable people are the ones that will have their rights curtailed. You CAN support 2A and not own a firearm. Interestingly after the recent hits on the NRA (you know, the killers that caused the MSD shootings) they signed up thousands of new members because it is a fight over Constitutional rights.

Move the discussion from 2A to 1A - how flexible are you in having your speech curtailed?

And I don't buy that the freedom to own a gun is absolute. Or with out restriction
Or the fantasy this leads to taking people's guns .... it's just not based in facts

I do not think it is without restriction, but the default is to allow with certain items to disqualify. But there has been significant calling from Dems and Dem legislators to ban and confiscate.

Due process? Or the lack of implementation of Due Process by legal authorities at the local, state, and Federal level??

And their rights wouldn't be violated by banning assault weapons either. Even in the Heller case the SC didn't say the government couldn't ban certain types of weapons.

Heller also stated the people have the right to the same arms in use in "lawful purpose". So technically, the people could get more advanced systems than currently available.

this was on fox Tucker Carlson

“Imagine if Barack Obama had said that? ‘Just ignore due process and confiscating guns.’ Obama would have been denounced as a dictator,” Carlson said on Thursday. “Congress would be talking impeachment right now. Someone would be muttering about secession.”

not sure if he is asking why this isn't happening or just for once see's how hypocritical the base is?

Went to see the comments which are very telling and no where on the 1st page of comments was there a critical comment against Trump he was mentioned 1 time here is the comment

What Fiasco. President Trump is battling the Democratic Communist Party, the Rhinos, the push towards a NWO,

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/03/01/tucker-carlson-trump-betraying-promises-guns-imagine-obama-said-take-guns-first/

I am sure they wont see an issue with this one as well ,,Trump praises Chinese president extending tenure 'for life'

“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

this is the part that scares me^^^^

You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:

Trump is enamored with dictators and authoritarian regimes. I don't even think he realizes what he's saying.

Here we agree

wdmso

03-04-2018, 11:42 AM

[QUOTE=JohnR;1138733]

You are exceptional at Cherry Picking you quotes to broad brush people. You may be even more effective than Spence. :rotf2:

/QUOTE]

And you are exceptional at refusing to see what you call cherry picked quotes as what they are ...
Actual statements from real people who lead the narrative and sit in postions of power and represent those who have have elected them

If you only look at quotes as only quotes I can see why you have a hard time seeing the picture they paint ... over time

zimmy

03-04-2018, 11:58 AM

@JohnR
Yes, It is 126 pages. Not going to list the specific individual weapons banned as new models would replace the banned ones.

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols with a military-style feature that can accept a detachable magazine;

· Semi-automatic rifles with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds;

· Semi-automatic shotguns with a military-style feature;

· Any ammunition feeding device that can hold more than 10 rounds;

It won't pass anyway, but a semi-auto .45 pistol or the semi-auto rifle with a 10 round fixed magazine would be legal if it didn't have a folding stock or the grips.
Did you read something different than that?

wdmso

03-04-2018, 12:07 PM

spence

03-04-2018, 12:16 PM

Russia funneling money through the NRA to help Trump? Say it ain’t so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR

03-04-2018, 02:26 PM

And you are exceptional at refusing to see what you call cherry picked quotes as what they are ...
Actual statements from real people who lead the narrative and sit in postions of power and represent those who have have elected them

If you only look at quotes as only quotes I can see why you have a hard time seeing the picture they paint ... over time

No, but we drastically disagree on many things.

You led with a tiny and very extreme view of guns and religion, and then moved to Trump. You went and framed the conversation with a tiny fringe (Moonies fer crying out loud??) and then rolled into Trump.

JohnR

03-04-2018, 02:27 PM

Russia funneling money through the NRA to help Trump? Say it ain’t so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wouldn't be shocked, keep in mind they funnel money everywhere (Workers Parties, CPUSA, Cough Cough) and have for hundreds of years. It's what they do.

wdmso

03-04-2018, 06:07 PM

No, but we drastically disagree on many things.

You led with a tiny and very extreme view of guns and religion, and then moved to Trump. You went and framed the conversation with a tiny fringe (Moonies fer crying out loud??) and then rolled into Trump.

I agree

What I presented were all legit stories and statements who common intersection are guns

And only presenting them as reported

And I strongly feel The NRA and it intractable position. On gun control will be the biggest negative impact on all gun owners in the years to come

JohnR

03-04-2018, 07:39 PM

I agree

What I presented were all legit stories and statements who common intersection are guns

And only presenting them as reported

And I strongly feel The NRA and it intractable position. On gun control will be the biggest negative impact on all gun owners in the years to come

But the extreme fringe, as if you are trying to categorize everyone supporting 2A as that extreme fringe.

Nebe

03-05-2018, 06:11 AM

wdmso

03-05-2018, 08:34 AM

But the extreme fringe, as if you are trying to categorize everyone supporting 2A as that extreme fringe.

the extreme fringe are the ones with all the money that are making the most noise.. I am not against the 2a i have said it 10 different ways

But here like most other places like FB if your open to any gun control and again i mean any .. your Anti 2nd Amendment (bump stocks are a good example )

And if your a 2 a supporter and own guns and agree with the need for some gun control your a NRAINO.

JohnR

03-05-2018, 09:21 AM

You can support the 2nd amandment and want strict gun control at the same time. It’s an amazing concept called back ground checks and regulation. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I understand better backgrounds checks are necessary but there is also "Shall not be infringed" . So you can't take away the right to bear, and for those that do you had better have due process figured out (regardless of what DT said). Heller stated the public has the right to arms and to used in lawful purpose (ie self defense / home defense).

So lets have a discussion on how to protect 1A, 2A and 4A, 8A, etc and keep people safe. I’m not sure why people can grasp this.

The Bill of Rights is the basis upon which this country is governed and if that is altered there will be unimaginable conflict.

JohnR

03-05-2018, 09:22 AM

the extreme fringe are the ones with all the money that are making the most noise..

Simply not true, prove it.

spence

03-05-2018, 10:00 AM

Yes, I understand better backgrounds checks are necessary but there is also "Shall not be infringed".
This is part of the problem, what exactly shall not be infringed? "Arms" is a pretty vague term and the SCOTUS has clearly stated it's not unlimited.

zimmy

03-05-2018, 10:59 AM

This is part of the problem, what exactly shall not be infringed? "Arms" is a pretty vague term and the SCOTUS has clearly stated it's not unlimited.

Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete. There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US
Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)
At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

detbuch

03-05-2018, 11:56 AM

[QUOTE=zimmy;1138798]Right, they blew it with the wording. There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete.

The militia did not refer to "state" militias:
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

There was no way for them to know the 14th amendment would come along and make it apply to state governments, as well as feds. It was 200 years until the Heller decision came along and flipped things on their head.

Heller decision didn't flip the original meaning. It asserted, in it's opinion, the original meaning.

Context of the writing of the 2nd amendment:
4 million people in US

Number of people in the entire nation is irrelevant. Most cities have less than 4 million people. Some States do.

Private arms were black powder flintlock muskets (a militia would have canons)

Private arms, flintlock muskets were the "assault" weapons of the day. They were standard military arms. And some private citizens did own canons--legally.

At time of writing, only applied to federal laws, states could have completely banned private ownership of arms.

That was one of the benefits of an armed citizenry. It would not have been possible then for the states to ban ownership of arms. And some of the original 13 state constitutions did establish the right to own and bear arms. And that right had already been established in English common law before the revolution and was considered by the Founders as a universal right.

spence

03-05-2018, 01:23 PM

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

Sea Dangles

03-05-2018, 02:03 PM

Jeff, there is a lot of things that are beyond you. But that's alright because you live in a free country where you can voice your disapproval with an occasional clear thought. I respect that we live in an evolving country that has an unique way of balancing things out when they go askew. Things will slowly improve,hopefully to where only the good guys have Whatever type of firearm they want to shoot paper with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-05-2018, 02:43 PM

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

According to the supreme court, it doesn't. There are tons of banned weapons. There were weapons banned under 1994 law. They could be banned again if/when congress or individual states decide to do it. Legal precedent supports it.

spence

03-05-2018, 03:16 PM

Jeff, there is a lot of things that are beyond you.
So adorable

Pete F.

03-05-2018, 03:21 PM

Unfortunately this argument has moved from what would reasonable people do to "weapons designed for war"
All weapons were designed for war is how some people think of guns. I read a letter to the editor the other day that said "it is just a matter of time till the owner of these guns decides to kill people with them".
This won't be solved until the two just a matter of time groups (decide to kill and slippery slope) come together and find some middle ground.

detbuch

03-05-2018, 03:24 PM

This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

Here is a good explication of the meanings of the words in the 2A contemporaneous to the time it was written. It is a little bit longish, not too much, just very thorough and a really good guide to understanding the 2A.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-‘arms’-‘well-regulated’-and-‘militia’-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

spence

03-05-2018, 03:51 PM

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.
Yes, because there was no National Guard.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.
Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.
To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

Pete F.

03-05-2018, 04:02 PM

Just remember that when they passed the 19th Amendment, some said it might come back to bite you in the ass. This might be that issue.

Got Stripers

03-05-2018, 04:31 PM

I respect that we live in an evolving country that has an unique way of balancing things out when they go askew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Smartest thing I’ve read yet, that is the beauty of the good old USA, our system of government has so far won the test of time. It survived world wars, conflicts of all nature around the globe; I suspect we will live through Trump, little rocket man and if we are proactive Putin’s meddling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-05-2018, 04:43 PM

Yes, because there was no National Guard.
Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

"Evolved" is the Progressive way of saying changed by Court or legislative fiat without actually amending.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

wdmso

03-05-2018, 04:56 PM

Simply not true, prove it.

You just did ..

spence

03-05-2018, 04:57 PM

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.
Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

detbuch

03-05-2018, 05:02 PM

Just remember that when they passed the 19th Amendment, some said it might come back to bite you in the ass. This might be that issue.

I've heard persuasive theories that giving women the right to vote is responsible for changing our political culture from an individualistic and legalistic male orientation emphasizing freedom and self responsibility to a nurturing female socialistic orientation which emphasizes a collective, communal, responsibility to care for one another embodied in by a "Motherly" State. On the other hand, a misogynist who didn't take care of his own family, Karl Marx created the foundation for that collective Mother State.

detbuch

03-05-2018, 05:40 PM

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

Which words?

spence

03-05-2018, 05:53 PM

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.
This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.
At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

detbuch

03-05-2018, 07:30 PM

This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

You said: "Your 'fiat changes' are part of the system they [The Founders] created and are the law of the land." To which I responded "They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system."

Fiat Changes, changes made without using the amendment process are not part of the system the Founders created.

To use your God analogy, my response would by like saying that my disobeying God's commandment not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge as stated in the laws of His "system," in The Garden of Eden, would be my "fiat" creation of a sin, a sort of cancer in God's system--a destruction of the Garden.

Or, more simply put, not following proper procedure is like throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

A cancer becomes a part of a system by debilitating it, and eventually destroying it. Changing the Constitution by fiat decision rather than properly amending it, weakens it, becomes, at first, a small precedent like a beginning cancer, and expands, by that precedent, as a method to change, eventually to entirely subvert the way it is made to work, eventually to make it null and void, replaced with something different, a giant tumor of law by whim.

At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

My thought process was in response to zimmy's "There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete." Militia being, at that time, the whole people, zimmy's notion would mean that the whole people would become obsolete. In which case, there would be no need of a Constitution, or anything else.

I knew there was a debate about the danger of a standing army at that time. I mentioned that recently in another thread. The Quora link I posted above mentions the Anti-Federalist's (Mason was an Anti-Federalist) fear of a standing federal army, and Mason specifically feared that what he, and the other Founders, understood the militia to be ("the whole people") would someday be changed and would be replaced by those unfaithful to what the Founders were attempting, and would replace it with various forms of standing armies.

To a great extent, Mason was right to hold that fear.

zimmy

03-05-2018, 08:26 PM

My thought process was in response to zimmy's "There was no way for them to know that state militias would become obsolete." Militia being, at that time, the whole people, zimmy's notion would mean that the whole people would become obsolete. In which case, there would be no need of a Constitution, or anything else.

So you are saying that the way our country defends itself today is that everyone aka "the whole people" are members of militias. Is that how we fought every, or should I say any, war or armed conflict in the last 125 years?

detbuch

03-05-2018, 09:14 PM

So you are saying that the way our country defends itself today is that everyone aka "the whole people" are members of militias. Is that how we fought every, or should I say any, war or armed conflict in the last 125 years?

No. According to the Founders concept, the militia is still the whole people. If the people choose not to be armed, and if government denies private ownership of "assault" weapons, then the militia is lacking in the will and the firepower to defend itself. Foreign wars are administered by the federal government, whether by a standing army or by conscripting from the whole people.

Slipknot

03-05-2018, 10:01 PM

Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

What law? be precise, where is this law? exactly that says the National Guard IS the militia? Also when did this happen? be precise.

You said it and I call bull

zimmy

03-05-2018, 10:13 PM

No. According to the Founders concept, the militia is still the whole people. If the people choose not to be armed, and if government denies private ownership of "assault" weapons, then the militia is lacking in the will and the firepower to defend itself. Foreign wars are administered by the federal government, whether by a standing army of by conscripting from the whole people.

Do you think private citizens should have cruise missiles, bunker busters, nukes, etc to defend themselves? Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

zimmy

03-05-2018, 10:27 PM

What law? be precise, where is this law? exactly that says the National Guard IS the militia? Also when did this happen? be precise.

You said it and I call bull

National Guard IS the militia? Well, militias became the National Guard and effectively remained that way ever since with some limited recurrence of state militias.

National Guard Mobilization Act 1933
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497658.pdf

scottw

03-06-2018, 01:06 AM

Trump should announce an executive order banning those on the american left from owning firearms....shouldn't really be a problem and if they complain about constitutionality etc...they will look foolish...they won't necessarily have to hand over their guns and get nothing, there could be a buy back type program...hand in your guns and get a comfort pet working in conjunction with american pet shelters..this would relieve the stress on overcrowded pet shelters nationwide...hand in your gun..get a comfort pet ...go back to your safe space which was just made much safer and comforting thanks to Trump....also, the creation of a national(easily searchable)registry of american leftists who never owned and/or no longer have guns on the premises...this is so the bad guys will know where to go to get stuff...that should reduce american homes with guns quite significantly and in a much higher proportion in the most violent cities and communities in America...which will no doubt make America a safer place...

detbuch

03-06-2018, 01:10 AM

Do you think private citizens should have cruise missiles, bunker busters, nukes, etc to defend themselves? Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

scottw

03-06-2018, 02:15 AM

The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right.

yes...."the right of the people" is a recurring theme in the Bill of Rights

wdmso

03-06-2018, 04:30 AM

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

wdmso

03-06-2018, 04:42 AM

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990

in the 1970's The NRA pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment,

Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. (happens here )

1980s
Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms

The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion

But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years.

and if you think it cant swing back your not paying attention

Nebe

03-06-2018, 06:38 AM

https://youtu.be/nG4V_6pCLVo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-06-2018, 06:52 AM

Sea Dangles

03-06-2018, 07:15 AM

Let's get this straight and put aside the semantics,THE NATIONAL GUARD US NOT A MILITIA. I know this may suit the agenda of some but it simply is not the case. Nebe,great video. Ronnie was right,we don't need machine guns to hunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy

03-06-2018, 08:08 AM

THE NATIONAL GUARD US NOT A MILITIA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Militia act 1903 (I am sure you know the nickname) divided state militias into two parts-the organized militia (National Guard) and the reserve militia (state militia).

Also, US Supreme Court Maryland v us 1961 381
"The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution. 8 It has only been in recent years that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable of being assimilated with ease into the regular military establishment of the United States."

JohnR

03-06-2018, 08:23 AM

Smartest thing I’ve read yet, that is the beauty of the good old USA, our system of government has so far won the test of time. It survived world wars, conflicts of all nature around the globe; I suspect we will live through Trump, little rocket man and if we are proactive Putin’s meddling.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/21/cnn-thinks-socialism-cool-my-grandparents-ussr-would-disagree/349830002/

You just did ..

?? The Fringe is those Moonies blessing guns. The Fringe is Antifa Legolas going to smash the Fasch. I don't believe either is callable of rational thought, or working together.

Nebe

03-06-2018, 08:52 AM

I don't know how long it will continue and am beginning to wonder if the Republic can be saved. I truly hope it does.

Particularly because a large percentage of Millenials, the cough cough future, believe Socialism/Communism is better than Capitalism/Freedom.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/21/cnn-thinks-socialism-cool-my-grandparents-ussr-would-disagree/349830002/

?? The Fringe is those Moonies blessing guns. The Fringe is Antifa Legolas going to smash the Fasch. I don't believe either is callable of rational thought, or working together.

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

03-06-2018, 09:14 AM

"A fraud on the American public.”

I think I brought this up a few months ago that all this 2nd Amendment outrage was just a political stunt to push back against the liberal social reforms of the 1960's.

Slipknot

03-06-2018, 09:36 AM

Slipknot

03-06-2018, 09:40 AM

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons. And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.

Yes the original concept of the militia is still relevant since it and the whole people are one and the same. The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right. The individual right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the individual being part of a state or federally organized militia or even part of the unorganized militia of the whole people. On the contrary, originally, the militia was dependent on the right of individuals to arm themselves. That right is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed regardless of whether the individual joins the whole people as a defensive force or doesn't. But the 2A does express that the individual can take part in and with the militia in order to defend themselves against any threat.

The federal encroachment on the original militia concept has created a new, federally regulated and funded notion of the militia. In effect, as Mason predicted, the central government has indeed usurped his notion of the militia being the whole people and turned it into what he and the Founders feared--a rather permanent standing army which funds, organizes, and arms a select force that can be used in various circumstances to police and control American citizens.

yep the whole debate is about control

and once they control the food, your ass is grass

Nebe

03-06-2018, 10:26 AM

Want to defend yourself, take a firearms safety course, apply(bow to your master) for an LTC from your town police, wait for them to maybe issue, go to gunshop put down your money wait while they call in background check after filing out the form truthfully and sign it, once approved you take your firearm that is on a list of approved firearms and can now defend yourself legally.

no need to go on and on

How did we get here? chasing our tails that is how
Progressive socialists wanting bigger government and more government protection to make decisions for us got their way and allowed it to happen while hard working Americans built businesses only to have Lizzie Warren and Obama tell us we did not build our businesses.

Don't like it? having freedom taken away? Vote Libertarian then and arm yourself, Otherwise enjoy slavery

Everyone thinks I am a liberal art fag but the truth is, I identify more with libertarianism. Here’s the catch with being a libertarian.... you expect everyone else to be as smart as you. Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts, brainwashing by the TV and mass corruption in our government, we need laws to protect us from those with no moral compas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles

03-06-2018, 10:33 AM

JohnR

03-06-2018, 10:36 AM

Freedom? Let’s talk about freedom.

Want to build a house? You need a permit.
Want to go fishing? You need a permit
Want to drive? You need a permit
Want to own a gun? You need a permit.
Want to vote? You need a permit
Want to own a business? You need a permit
Want to get a good job? You need a degree (stealth permit)
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? You need a reservation.
Want to drive across the bridge? You need to pay a toll.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? Get ready to pay a lot more for it than someone with good credit. (Rich getting richer poor getting poorer)
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? Get ready for Fines.
Want to invest your life savings in the stock market and have Wall Street crash and wipe out 50% of your nest egg while the elites sold yesterday ? (Stealth wealth redistribution)

Shall I go on?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are absolutely correct, and anything that can be done to reclaim some liberty and freedom is necessary and is a worthy goal.

Want to build a house? You have no property - belongs to people and state. States determines what you get..
Want to go fishing? People's Fish, keep one, give rest to State.
Want to drive? You don't need car, take bus. When bus broke take foot.
Want to own a gun? No gun. The state will provide for your safety.
Want to vote? Vote, ha! Our Democratic Elected Officials win 96-96% every time because people are happy.
Want to own a business? No business. The people own everything. State does not need Glassblowers though but your skill set will help cultivating rubber trees.
Want to get a good job? You need to know someone.
Want to go camping on state or federal campgrounds? Maybe in 2022 there is opening.
Want to drive across the bridge? Show me your papers.
Don’t have good credit and want to buy a new car? There is no money, only wealth of people.
Want to buy a house in a housing community with strict bylaws and want to store your boat in your yard and fly an American flag proudly? All housing community have strict enforcers.
Wealth redistributs you

I think I brought this up a few months ago that all this 2nd Amendment outrage was just a political stunt to push back against the liberal social reforms of the 1960's.

You mean the Oath affirmed by law enforcement, military, politicians (blech) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"

Everyone thinks I am a liberal art fag but the truth is, I identify more with libertarianism. Here’s the catch with being a libertarian.... you expect everyone else to be as smart as you. Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts, brainwashing by the TV and mass corruption in our government, we need laws to protect us from those with no moral compas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am more libertarian too but don't think most people can handle it. Much thanks to the infection of progressive ideology in the classroom rather than an open and equal debate of pros and cons from both sides of the ideological spectrum, and perhaps finding a common ground.

Nebe

03-06-2018, 10:56 AM

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-06-2018, 10:57 AM

Everyone thinks I am a liberal art fag(this is not true) but the truth is, I identify more with libertarianism(this may be true). Here’s the catch with being a libertarian.... you expect everyone else to be as smart as you(this is hilarious). Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts(we spend a ton on education...it's the education that's been dumbed down), brainwashing by the TV(whose fault is that?) and mass corruption in our government(which is why we need more government?), we need laws to protect us from those with no moral compas(since when do people with no moral compass give a crap about laws??).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I still love you...

Pete F.

03-06-2018, 11:38 AM

The United States could never become Libertarian, who would support all the lawyers. Do you know any that ever produced anything?
Just remember we are the only country in the world where a business cannot plug two extension cords together, thank a lawyer. If you don't believe that ask your local OSHA inspector.
1. U.S. 1 lawyer for every 300 people
2. Brazil: 1 lawyer for every 326 people
3. New Zealand: 1 lawyer for every 391 people
4. Spain: 1 lawyer for every 395 people
5. UK: 1 lawyer for every 401 people
6. Italy: 1 lawyer for every 488 people
7. Germany: 1 lawyer for every 593 people
8. France: 1 lawyer for every 1,403 people

zimmy

03-06-2018, 01:24 PM

spence

03-06-2018, 01:53 PM

Jim in CT

03-06-2018, 01:54 PM

. Truth is, thanks to the dumbing down of america by education cuts,Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You'd be hard-pressed in CT, to find a town that ever cuts education spending from one year to the next. Do we, as a nation, spend less on education than we used to? Not in college, that's for damned sure.

Nebe

03-06-2018, 01:54 PM

I still love you...

And I love you and your dirty jugs collection. Hehehe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-06-2018, 02:26 PM

Do you think the militia concept is still relevant?

Here is an article which I highly, highly recommend entitled "The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality". It has a Libertarian sounding point of view that talks about the actual civility that existed under local, private, control in what has erroneously been referred to as the "Wild West." In the main it contrasts the civility of a type of local self governance of people associating in mutual commerce to the breakdown of civility caused by the intervention of a powerful central government reshaping that society in order to advance the interests of political ideology fueled by greedy politicans and corporate types. It touches on the relative peacefulness and civility during the militia concept in practice in the Western U.S. frontier in contrast to the change to violence that occurred when the federal army entered and replaced the militia with federal law:

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=803

It's a trifle longish, but an extremely interesting, eye opening, and not boring, article. Here is the excerpt that specifically mentions militia:

"Terry Anderson and Fred McChesney relate how Thomas Jefferson found that during his time negotiation was the Europeans’ predominant means of acquiring land from Indians. By the twentieth century, some $800 million had been paid for Indian lands. These authors also argue that various factors can alter the incentives for trade, as opposed to waging a war of conquest as a means of acquiring land. One of the most important factors is the existence of a standing army, as opposed to militias, which were used in the American West prior to the War Between the States. On this point, Anderson and McChesney quote Adam Smith, who wrote that “‘[i]n a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character.’” A standing army, according to Anderson and McChesney, “creates a class of professional soldiers whose personal welfare increases with warfare, even if fighting is a negative-sum act for the population as a whole."

"The change from militia to a standing army took place in the American West immediately upon the conclusion of the War Between the States. The result, say Anderson and McChesney, was that white settlers and railroad corporations were able to socialize the costs of stealing Indian lands by using violence supplied by the U.S. Army. On their own, they were much more likely to negotiate peacefully. Thus, “raid” replaced “trade” in white–Indian relations. Congress even voted in 1871 not to ratify any more Indian treaties, effectively announcing that it no longer sought peaceful relations with the Plains Indians."

"Anderson and McChesney do not consider why a standing army replaced militias in 1865, but the reason is not difficult to discern. One has only to read the official pronouncements of the soldiers and political figures who launched a campaign of extermination against the Plains Indians."

Much of the article can be applied to the current nexus of big government with big business. And to a potential danger in federalizing the "militia"--of making it a form of a select standing federal army rather than a localized "whole people" defense force.

detbuch

03-06-2018, 03:06 PM

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy :rotf2:

Not my assertion. it's the 2A's assertion--the right to keep and "bear" arms. As in the Macmillan definition:

"to carry or hold something, for example a weapon--bear arms (=carry weapons): Do you support the citizen’s right to bear arms?"

And I didn't say that you're not "entitled" to nukes or tanks. I said the 2A guarantees the right to bear arms. You might be "entitled" to a tank, but that doesn't mean you have a 2A guaranteed right to one.

And I specifically said about nukes: "And Nukes are pretty much banned worldwide as weapons of war except as a deterrence.:

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

That was about all he could "bear." And his rifle was the "assault" weapon of the day. AR15's are not even as "assault" worthy as the automatic weapons that todays soldiers have.

Sea Dangles

03-06-2018, 03:08 PM

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy :rotf2:

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

03-06-2018, 03:18 PM

JohnR

03-06-2018, 03:37 PM

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not fair. Remember plenty retire at 45 than move to another job in the system to grab another 10.

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

The default of human history has been tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Freedom (even whittled away as suggested by the Nebster), beats the alternative. The Constitution is a road map on how to guide the country forward, to maintain some level of Freedom and Liberty. They even created a mechanism of the people to amend and replace parts of the Constitution. How prescient.

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

Yep, there is room for compromise but it is not being given room. If you banned AR15s tomorrow, what would it change? If you had a reliable and unusable solution to prevent unstable people from having access to ARs, would it not be better? How can you get their without violating other people's rights?

spence

03-06-2018, 04:01 PM

That was about all he could "bear." And his rifle was the "assault" weapon of the day. AR15's are not even as "assault" worthy as the automatic weapons that todays soldiers have.
To carry a weapon also implies its use otherwise what's the point? If the ability to serve in a militia was bound by the weight of the arms you'd think that would have been called out. It really doesn't make any sense.

That an AR-15 isn't fully auto doesn't really matter. It's still a military design and from what I understand using an M-16/MP4 full auto is usually a waste of ammunition and something most in the infantry would rarely do.

Got Stripers

03-06-2018, 04:39 PM

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?

JohnR

03-06-2018, 04:39 PM

To carry a weapon also implies its use otherwise what's the point? If the ability to serve in a militia was bound by the weight of the arms you'd think that would have been called out. It really doesn't make any sense.

That an AR-15 isn't fully auto doesn't really matter. It's still a military design and from what I understand using an M-16/MP4 full auto is usually a waste of ammunition and something most in the infantry would rarely do.

That an AR15 does not go Fully Auto or Selective Fire DO matter as to where a rifle is a military weapon or not. You can hang a grenade launcher underneath if you re in the military (and your superiors approve) but you cannot legally do it on a civilian firearm.

There are other considerable differences as well. I know of one that looks scary but frankly would melt and fail if you placed it under the rigors of actual combat, selective fire, or full auto.

Oh and Legal Definitions Matter

:wall:

JohnR

03-06-2018, 04:44 PM

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?

Old Abe (if I could go back in time that would be the one thing I would sure fix - Ford Theater) actually significantly increased the power of the Federal Government during his time.

Not me - No Militia IT guy here. For Reals.

P.S. Go look up the Socialist Rifle Association.

So lemme get this straight - if DJT wanted to pull a XI Zedong and become President for life - you wouldn't want citizens saying NO?

detbuch

03-06-2018, 04:50 PM

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

The militia aspect is relevant to the self-government aspect. If the people are armed and consider themselves a militia, for instance, mass school shootings, Chicago gun violence, gang violence, drug cartel violence, border protection issues, criminal assaults, corrupt local law enforcement tyrannies, could be eliminated or lessened to a tiny minimum, and a host of other things including rescues, disaster relief and rebuilding of communities and so forth, could be handled more quickly at local levels rather than depending on national agencies. The civic and civil nature of citizen self-government would be far, far more prominent in our national psyche than it is now in our current dependence on the federal government and the POTUS, to solve our problems. The danger of continuous movement to large, bureaucratic, centralized government with its growing control of the nation's market in fascistic tandem with large centralized corporate monopolies, and its need to gain and keep power by taking on to itself the individual responsibilities inherent in a self regulating society, and which sucks the initiative/motivation out of nearly half the population, could all be put back into the Pandora's box of creeping tyranny that is now occurring.

At the "time of writing" the citizens did not have the same weapons as the federal government. But they had a federal government which was faithful to the Constitution that they had all written. They had federal and state politicians who knew that subverting that Constitution, "interpreting" it in deceitful ways that transferred newly guaranteed individual powers and rights from the people to the central government, would be an end to the great experiment in individual freedom they had just created. Preservation of the constitutional order was a far greater goal for them than the quest for power. The Constitution they had just written was a check and balance against the quest for power.

The notion that the federal government will use the federal army and air force to come after Americans on American soil goes against all the founding, constitutional values of this nation. If it gets to such a place, it will be because we the people have allowed it. Because we have given up our Constitutional powers and transferred them to a government that we thought would give us security instead of the liberty with responsibility that the Constitution ordained and established for us.

The notion that the government would use F-22's and all the massive firepower of the federal armed forces against citizens of this country is even more foolish than the notion that people would try to resist such force with handguns and AR15's. The optics would be horrible.

And if we have truly arrived at such a place, then blame those who in the past 100 years kept voting for a government that promised to do for us what we had the responsibility to do for ourselves.

Got Stripers

03-06-2018, 05:01 PM

Old Abe (if I could go back in time that would be the one thing I would sure fix - Ford Theater) actually significantly increased the power of the Federal Government during his time.

Not me - No Militia IT guy here. For Reals.

P.S. Go look up the Socialist Rifle Association.

So lemme get this straight - if DJT wanted to pull a XI Zedong and become President for life - you wouldn't want citizens saying NO?

See that's where this argument just gets crazy for me, can I assume that DJT has control over the military or not? If not then no the military and the good men and women it the service of our country will take care of things and no citizens militia is needed. If yes then I fall back to my previous post and we are all screwed and no amount of armed citizens is going to make a hill of beans difference.

detbuch

03-06-2018, 05:34 PM

See that's where this argument just gets crazy for me, can I assume that DJT has control over the military or not? If not then no the military and the good men and women it the service of our country will take care of things and no citizens militia is needed. If yes then I fall back to my previous post and we are all screwed and no amount of armed citizens is going to make a hill of beans difference.

If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.

If yes, how would we have gotten to such a state given the wonderful evolution of society over time which is supposed to require changes made in the Constitution to make it serve the here and now? As it was originally written, the Constitution gave Congress the power to check the President by not funding his escapades, including military ventures.

Actually, the "evolution" of the Constitution over time without use of amendment (actually the "ignoring" is more apt than the "evolution") has brought us closer to an unchecked central power than was possible under the faithfulness to the pre-evolved (pre-ignored) Constitution.

Pete F.

03-06-2018, 06:54 PM

So the thought is that armed revolutions are more successful than unarmed ones.
Statistically over the past 50 years how true is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

03-06-2018, 07:10 PM

If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.

If yes, how would we have gotten to such a state given the wonderful evolution of society over time which is supposed to require changes made in the Constitution to make it serve the here and now? As it was originally written, the Constitution gave Congress the power to check the President by not funding his escapades, including military ventures.

Actually, the "evolution" of the Constitution over time without use of amendment (actually the "ignoring" is more apt than the "evolution") has brought us closer to an unchecked central power than was possible under the faithfulness to the pre-evolved (pre-ignored) Constitution. Well you have twisted that around for sure, but no if Trump goes off the rails and wants to suddenly proclaim himself the next coming and the military isn't in his pocket, I suspect our neighbors, friends and relatives serving will right the ship and kick his ass to the curb, so no I'm not worried. But if you have added a third alternative, where DJT goes off the rails, the military stop him, but then hungry for power decide to declare military law, that's my alternate #2; we are screwed and all your 38 magnums, 12 ga, deer rifles and AR-15s aren't going so save your butts.

If the constitution were written in stone 300 years ahead of when it was written, I suspect you would still be interpreting it literary as you see those early people meant it to be interpreted.

detbuch

03-06-2018, 10:00 PM

Well you have twisted that around for sure, but no if Trump goes off the rails and wants to suddenly proclaim himself the next coming and the military isn't in his pocket, I suspect our neighbors, friends and relatives serving will right the ship and kick his ass to the curb, so no I'm not worried.

So you and I agree on that, as I stated in the first paragraph of my post to which you're replying here: "If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.

But if you have added a third alternative, where DJT goes off the rails, the military stop him, but then hungry for power decide to declare military law, that's my alternate #2; we are screwed and all your 38 magnums, 12 ga, deer rifles and AR-15s aren't going so save your butts.

I guess I missed this third alternative in either of your two previous posts, still don't see it in them probably because I may not fully understand what you were saying. But if there were some military coup that took over the federal government, then we would very well want the 2A to mean that individuals and militias would have the right to own and use the same weapons of war that the military has. 100 to 200 million militarily equipped combatants vs. the approximately 2.7 million in the federal military would pose a very formidable, probably an insurmountable threat to such a coup. Anywhoo, the extreme notions of individuals owning WMDs or the government sending F22's to mow down citizens is beside the primary reason for the 2A. It is meant, as is the rest of the Constitution, to be part of its structural deterrent to any thought that those in government might have to tyrannize the people. It is not meant to be some whacko saber rattling of the people in order to make government officials daily quake in their boots.

So, even if the government had to oppose 100 to 200 million armed not with military grade weapons but with AR15's and a good supply of ammunition in the combined militias, it would still be a formidable task for the federal armed forces to cover the entire U.S. loaded with 100 to 200 million armed civilian militia. And what would be left in the aftermath, if somehow the federal military "won" would be worse than a mere pyrrhic Victory. That's even provided that all in the federal forces would side with their commanders. It would be highly likely, if the people did resist and fight back, that many, if not most, would not obey their commanders and desert to join the militias, carrying and taking their tanks and planes, etc., with them. So the notion of such a coup is silly. At least at this time. That is what a tyrannically minded government would have to think about. An armed citizenry should give such a government the conclusion that stripping the people of their constitutional rights would have to be done by a political transition rather than a military one.

However, given some more "evolving" toward our acceptance of central power over individual freedom, who knows?

If the constitution were written in stone 300 years ahead of when it was written, I suspect you would still be interpreting it literary as you see those early people meant it to be interpreted.

The Constitution is not a codex of civil or criminal laws which can often become obsolete under new technological or social/cultural conditions. It is merely a structure under which the federal government works. It is a political structure, not meant to respond to specific technological or cultural advances per se, but only if they fall into the one of the broad categories of power (enumerations) that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate.

It is a system designed to constrain government from oppressing individuals. It is designed to promote optimal individual freedom, not to promote or regulate individual or collective, or scientific behaviors. It is based on human nature, human proclivities to desire power to rule others by coercion. It is meant to be the most viable blueprint for protecting natural rights as well as the freedom to express those rights, to fully achieve individual potentials, to protect the market place of ideas and the marketplace of commerce. It is meant to be a means toward equality for all before the law. And it provides the means to change the structure if needed.

Human nature has not changed in 300 years. Human proclivities have not changed. What is there to be interpreted differently in our structure of government in order to still protect natural rights and the expression of those rights? And why, if the people demand it, couldn't the Constitution be amended to address a better way instead of doing so by fiat?

Difficult problems of "interpretation" usually arise when government wishes to impose regulation for which the Constitution does not give it the power to do so, and it wants to get around and beyond those constitutional limitations. In most of those cases it is a question of government reaching beyond the power granted to one of its particular branches. Honest constitutional judges would resolve such disputes simply by determining if the government claim actually fits into one of its enumerated powers which are few, but broadly worded so that any issue could be determined whether or not it fell into the purview of government power to regulate. If not, the regulation should be struck down as unconstitutional. If so, it should be allowed as constitutional no matter how unpopular it might be. The government has no rights outside of its enumerated powers. But it has plenary, basically unlimited, power within those enumerations. What more does it need unless it desires to deny individual rights in favor of gaining more power to itself?

But judges who believe that government should not be constrained, especially if it purports to do what they personally consider social good, regardless of how it affects the structure of the Constitution, and therefor how it affects individual liberties, such judges, in liaison with Progressive politicians, over time and with compounded precedent, corrupt and destroy the constitutional structure. And what is left is not a framework that protects individual rights, but a government that determines what your rights are. And those rights, under such an unstructured and basically unconstrained system, will constantly and frequently change.

So, yes. If the Constitution was written 300 years earlier and had the same structure, I would interpret it in the way it was originally composed.