More red state Idiocy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

[Got Stripers]

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11. What now is a threat to the average citizen or their children IS a mass shooting at a school, a mall, your local Walmart or some far right nuts taking out your entire cities powe grid.

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so you’re not concerned about the carnage taking place in “high crime areas”?

bob, WAY more people are killed by handguns and fentanyl, than are killed by rifles. it’s not even close. we should address all those problems obviously, but basic common sense says you prioritize the ones that are doing the most damage. isn’t that common sense?

sounds like you’re saying those people living in high crime areas are more expendable than the far smaller number of middle class white kids who are endangered by mass shootings with assault rifles

you came very close to saying that explicitly. liberals don’t often say the quiet part out loud.

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I wasn't addressing gun deaths, I was responding to DeBarr's post about the meaning of the right to arm citizens to form a militia, I'm not debating the quantity of gun deaths', but you do like to change subjects to get a greatest hits posted, even bringing drug deaths' into it also. Stay on point Jim.

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Maybe Jim you would agree the average every day gun death by a single gun isn’t likely putting the average American at risk, unless your living in a high crime area or behind the counter at the local liquor store or 7/11.

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Wow, So the people getting shot every day aren’t your “Average Americans”?

Sounds like somebody’s White Privilege is showing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Posted it in a way JIM would understand, I'm pretty sure even you and JIm got my meaning, using most americans would have come across meaning the same thing. You guys and this is true of both sides, like to spin something into something that wasn't said, Jim wanted to know why I only talk about mass shootings and I explained, it's because I'm not and most living outside crime areas or inner cities, aren't at risk from the long handgun shooter.

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

Since Originalism was invented in the 1980s, a few hundred years after the Constitution, I’ll call it a conservative fad.

Here’s how it’s used:

What happens in “originalist” judicial decisions has nothing to do with history. Instead, “originalism” is used as a way to shut down opposing arguments. To sum it up, that method has six steps:

1. Find some old legal cases or other sources that can be quoted, even if sharply edited first, to favor a conservative policy outcome of a constitutional dispute.

2. Proclaim this policy outcome as the “original public meaning” of the constitutional provision at issue.

3. Exclude as much contrary evidence (including existing judicial precedent) as possible.

4. Announce that none of the remaining evidence disproves your side’s preferred policy outcome.

5. Enshrine your preferred policy outcome in constitutional doctrine.

6. (optional) If courtesy calls for it, apologize for the harshness of the result, but note that you bear no responsibility. Our Founders decided it long, long ago, and you are simply their humble scribe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device