joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Last I checked the 2nd amendment means something besides what conservatives demand it to mean. If what you just said is a firm belief you have; then I challenge you to make the original meaning of the 2nd the current meaning. That would imply the law does not protect someone outside of a well regulated militia a protection of their arms against federal laws.
It has been demostrated to you time after time that our interpretation of the 2nd is the same as the intent of the writters.
You just proved my point!
The writers of the US Constitution never allowed 'some thug to have a gun' outside the law. If a law was pass that ban all muskets. The only people that could have muskets would be those in "A well regulated militia...". The thug, would either have to stop using the musket, or be in trouble with the law.
The US Supreme Court's ruling on Heller vs DC could ONLY be correct, if they were allowed to...REINTERPRET...the 2nd. The 2nd clearly states....WHO....defends the states. You would have me believe that you, BamaD, with your pistol, could defend the state from a massive number of invades with guns, tanks, and nukes? Yeah....GOOD LUCK on that argument!
The US Supreme Court is allowed to INTERPRET but not REINTERPRET the amendment. If they had interpreted the amendment correctly (as past US Supreme Court have done); they would have sided with the lower courts. Because that would have been the constitutional understanding of the 2nd. Instead, they made a political ruling because there were more conservatives than liberals (why do you think the decision was 5/4?), and because the GOP needed a win because many of the GOP seats in Congress were at risk.
Try explaining to me the 18th century understanding of the 2nd. Because that's how the founding fathers understood it. The only people that can reinterpret an amendment after the founding fathers, would be Congress. And they can ONLY reinterpret an amendment in one of four ways (only 2 have ever been used so far). Congress, has not performed such a task. THEREFORE, the 2nd was corrupted by the US Supreme Court conservative justices on the Heller vs DC case.
If the US Supreme Court is allowed to reinterpret laws; what keeps a liberal court from one day doing bad shit to America? Only one conservative has to be removed for a liberal to be there. Then, someone brings the 2nd amendment court case up from the lower courts. Allowing that liberal high court to reverse the previous ruling. Depending on how that liberal court makes it ruling, it could either 'correct the error' or 'go to far'.
I rather the law be corrected. I believe it would be a bad thing for this nation's future for such a court to not just stop at the corrected 2nd amendment understanding, but going beyond it. Now, for you NOT to be a hypocrite, you would have to have to oppose my viewpoint on this particular understanding. Meaning, its 'ok' for that liberal high court to 'go to far' with consideration on the 2nd. Do you understand?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You even admitted it at one time, but claimed superior wisdom.
I don't think your wisom exceeds that of Madison, Adams and company.
Madison, Adams, and company, could only understand the United States of America up to the end of the 18th century. I live in 2015. There exists quite a bit of time between those two dates. During that time, we have learned through observation what has worked and not worked. We have tried to bridge gaps with existing law so as to not create additional language on the books. Some amendments need to exist. Some do not. That is because the culture and make up of the nation has changed.
Tell me, how much need do we have for the 3rd?
Since this nation has more unoccupied homes than homeless right now. I think if we were in a 'pinch' with that 'low defense budget' that has been out stripped by other nations, we could house those soldiers in some of those empty houses.....
Wisdom is the ability to look past political viewpoints to see 'the end game'. For the 2nd amendment, the 'end game' on the path we are currently on is ugly. You can not understand; an I've tried to explain how ugly it will get. So you foolishly press forward with a political agenda that does more damage the longer its allowed to exist in the nation (an ultimate eliminates the 2nd). An yet, I've tried to steer the understanding towards a better path. Thereby eliminating or minimizing the damage 'down the road'. That you think I want firearms ban or heavily restricted is foolish.
Yeah, there are restrictions. Things that we as a people have learned since the time of the founding fathers. For starters they didn't know ANYTHING about the human mind compared to medical science in 2015. Nor did they understand human psychology the way we do now. When they created laws, it was simple the law itself. When laws are created, they are often given another piece of written material: the spirit of the law. A document meant to give future generations an understanding of 'what does this law mean' because we can not know possible future conflicts. The 'spirit of the law' as far as The Bill of Rights is concern is very vague. Why do you think there are HUGE debates on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th amendments. But never as many arguments on the last (i.e. most recent) ten amendments?
How many books exist on the 22nd challenges compared to the 2nd? The 22nd was written on the basis of knowledge learned. That future generations may come into conflict on the 22nd and wouldn't it be handy to have a VERY direct understanding of the author's intentions?
One could ask: Do we really need the 2nd given we have the planet's most ass-kicking military? Since that was the underlying reason for the 2nd's creation. It was never intended for 'billy bob to have a gun for any reason and be held to no accountability or responsibility. If anything, its just the opposite! The Founding Fathers did not want people to have guns whom were untrustworthy with said firearms. A militia can be held accountable by the population. How accountable is billy bob with that arm, given your collection of viewpoints? Not really accountable. An when people are not held accountable, particularly with dangerous tools; that bad shit usually follows.
|
Trump not defending Obama for being the M Word - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread