More red state Idiocy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

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

[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.

[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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

what’s the language? originalists, by definition, stick to what they wrote

once you start making assumptions about “what they really meant”, which is exactly what you’re doing, then it’s no longer originalism.