I like the wording of the Maine Constitution:
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Period.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still posit that it is nonsensical to bring up nuclear weapons when we are discussing assault weapons and magazine capacity.[/quote]
It’s only made necessary by the fact that opponents of arms control begin by questioning the notion that any weapon at all can be restricted. The nuclear weapon is the logical rebuttal.
But I wasn’t bringing them up in that context anyway. My point was that the US Government has them and therefore a “civilian military capable of rivaling the government’s power” is absolutely, comically ridiculous.[/quote]
Again, if personal missile systems are effecting your interpretation of an amendment written in the 1700s, you are full of shit.
Nor does an argument about what the amendment says and was intended to do necessitate that I think civilians should have nukes. But again, I’ve listed alternatives already and been ignored.
You are essentially arguing that the founders didn’t mean for civilians to have military arms, by pointing to nuclear weapons. Do you not see how absurdly ridiculous that is?
Still waiting on you to tell me what the amendment actually says.[/quote]
If original intent means so much to you, then let’s talk about the fact that when the founders wrote “keep and bear arms,” they were talking about muskets. So if you’re such a purist maybe the Second Amendment only permits you to own a musket. Good luck with your valiant rebellion there DD. Don’t forget your satchel of gunpowder.
Go back and read my posts: “It is fatuous speculation to wonder about whether or not the founders would have been cool with John Doe in Bumblefuck, USA and his cache of C-4.”
We’re not talking about heavy ordnance because the founders would or would not have wanted us to. We’re talking about heavy ordnance because it fucking exists today and under certain interpretations of our law it may be bought and stored by American citizens.
Edit: the Second Amendment says citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Whether this means all arms or not is not explicitly specified. That’s it. I won’t tack on some other nonsense that’s “right there in the text” and then refuse to acknowledge that, no, it isn’t “right there in the text.”[/quote]
Original intent matters because
- It’s still the law.
2.(and the reason I brought it up) you said that you supported the amendment.
I’m only contending and only started the discussion because you are being dishonest. You do not support the 2nd amendment. You think that it should be re-written. Which is fine. There is a process built into the constitution to do just that. BUT, twisting the text to read what you think it would say if they’d written it in today’s world isn’t it.
Your interpretation of the text is important, because you claimed to support it. All I’m asking is, what exactly are you claiming to support? In the course of the discussion, you DO owe that much.
My reading of the text is exactly what I claimed it to have read, and I stand by that. If I’m reading it wrong, what is the right way?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still posit that it is nonsensical to bring up nuclear weapons when we are discussing assault weapons and magazine capacity.[/quote]
It’s only made necessary by the fact that opponents of arms control begin by questioning the notion that any weapon at all can be restricted. The nuclear weapon is the logical rebuttal.
But I wasn’t bringing them up in that context anyway. My point was that the US Government has them and therefore a “civilian military capable of rivaling the government’s power” is absolutely, comically ridiculous.[/quote]
Again, if personal missile systems are effecting your interpretation of an amendment written in the 1700s, you are full of shit.
Nor does an argument about what the amendment says and was intended to do necessitate that I think civilians should have nukes. But again, I’ve listed alternatives already and been ignored.
You are essentially arguing that the founders didn’t mean for civilians to have military arms, by pointing to nuclear weapons. Do you not see how absurdly ridiculous that is?
Still waiting on you to tell me what the amendment actually says.[/quote]
If original intent means so much to you, then let’s talk about the fact that when the founders wrote “keep and bear arms,” they were talking about muskets. So if you’re such a purist maybe the Second Amendment only permits you to own a musket. Good luck with your valiant rebellion there DD. Don’t forget your satchel of gunpowder.
Go back and read my posts: “It is fatuous speculation to wonder about whether or not the founders would have been cool with John Doe in Bumblefuck, USA and his cache of C-4.”
We’re not talking about heavy ordnance because the founders would or would not have wanted us to. We’re talking about heavy ordnance because it fucking exists today and under certain interpretations of our law it may be bought and stored by American citizens.
Edit: the Second Amendment says citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Whether this means all arms or not is not explicitly specified. That’s it. I won’t tack on some other nonsense that’s “right there in the text” and then refuse to acknowledge that, no, it isn’t “right there in the text.”[/quote]
Then get off your ass and go get the 28th Amendment passed that clarifies things in this regard. Don’t espouse continuing to warp the 2nd to fit your modernist take on things.[/quote]
Sorry, I replied before I saw this post. This is a more condensed version.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still posit that it is nonsensical to bring up nuclear weapons when we are discussing assault weapons and magazine capacity.[/quote]
It’s only made necessary by the fact that opponents of arms control begin by questioning the notion that any weapon at all can be restricted. The nuclear weapon is the logical rebuttal.
But I wasn’t bringing them up in that context anyway. My point was that the US Government has them and therefore a “civilian military capable of rivaling the government’s power” is absolutely, comically ridiculous.[/quote]
Again, if personal missile systems are effecting your interpretation of an amendment written in the 1700s, you are full of shit.
Nor does an argument about what the amendment says and was intended to do necessitate that I think civilians should have nukes. But again, I’ve listed alternatives already and been ignored.
You are essentially arguing that the founders didn’t mean for civilians to have military arms, by pointing to nuclear weapons. Do you not see how absurdly ridiculous that is?
Still waiting on you to tell me what the amendment actually says.[/quote]
If original intent means so much to you, then let’s talk about the fact that when the founders wrote “keep and bear arms,” they were talking about muskets. So if you’re such a purist maybe the Second Amendment only permits you to own a musket. Good luck with your valiant rebellion there DD. Don’t forget your satchel of gunpowder.
Go back and read my posts: “It is fatuous speculation to wonder about whether or not the founders would have been cool with John Doe in Bumblefuck, USA and his cache of C-4.”
We’re not talking about heavy ordnance because the founders would or would not have wanted us to. We’re talking about heavy ordnance because it fucking exists today and under certain interpretations of our law it may be bought and stored by American citizens.
Edit: the Second Amendment says citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Whether this means all arms or not is not explicitly specified. That’s it. I won’t tack on some other nonsense that’s “right there in the text” and then refuse to acknowledge that, no, it isn’t “right there in the text.”[/quote]
Original intent matters because
- It’s still the law.
2.(and the reason I brought it up) you said that you supported the amendment.
I’m only contending and only started the discussion because you are being dishonest. You do not support the 2nd amendment. You think that it should be re-written.
[/quote]
No. I support the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. I own a gun.
Not all arms. But then again, the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about that.
I support the First Amendment vigorously. I also support Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Same thing.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
You support an armed militia capable of keeping a state free and think that it is necessary or the state can’t be free?
Edit:
You also support the baring of arms?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Are you implying that there are no weapons that are simply “too much?” Does this include explosive material and heavy ordnance?[/quote]
I’ll be honest, I don’t exactly know where “too much” is in precise terms.
[/quote]
The implication of this answer you gave to my question is that, while you don’t know where to draw the line, you do indeed believe that “too much” exists.
Is this as good as an answer to the Scud missiles question?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You support an armed militia capable of keeping a state free and think that it is necessary or the state can’t be free?[/quote]
I support exactly what I’ve just said I support. I support the literal, prescriptive clause of the Second Amendment.
I don’t support a “citizen military whose power could rival that of the government.” Because that is a bullshit line concocted by you.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You support an armed militia capable of keeping a state free and think that it is necessary or the state can’t be free?[/quote]
I support exactly what I’ve just said I support. I support the literal, prescriptive clause of the Second Amendment.
I don’t support a “citizen military whose power could rival that of the government.” Because that is a bullshit line concocted by you.[/quote]
So, you do not support an armed militia in order to keep the state free? Yeah, you don’t support the second amendment then. You aren’t for an amendment if you only read half of it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Let me ask you something, smh, do YOU believe original intent allowed for state and federal governments to be able to dictate how many cartridges could be loaded into a personal weapon of self defense? Do you?[/quote]
Well, at the time it was pretty much one ball and powder unless you had a double-barrel.
But, to actually answer the underlying question, citizens generally had better and more powerful firearms than the military.
Small settlements and groups would pool money and get things like mortors or proper rifled cannon to fight off pirates or whatnot.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Of course it helps me. The BOR was a reiteration, a guarantee, of natural rights or common law. The Bill of Rights did not grant those rights. Some state constitutions did not list all of them because they, like Madison, thought it a redundant exercise. The BOR DID apply to the states for this reason. [/quote]
No, it wouldn’t have, because if back in the early 1800s the state you lived in restricted your ability to own or carry a firearm in some way and you went into a court asking for relief claiming the state had just violated your federal Constitutional right under the Second Amendment, your case would have been dismissed.
The Bill of Rights most certainly did grant those rights, and states most certainly granted them as well, in various forms, and not to the extent you think they did, i.e., there were restrictions.
And, no, I can’t repeat this enough - the BOR didn’t apply to the states. It’s a fact. You won’t find a single wortwhile case, opinion, writing or statement from any authority supporting this ridiculous claim you keep pushing. Dead serious. If the Second Amendment applied to the states - i.e., the states were bound by it with no choice in the matter - simply show me some historical support for your opinion.
No, the fact that states adopted their own BORs is not support for that because that means ipso facto that the states were not bound by the Second Amendment - it was…wait for it…a choice to do so, which they could have chosen not to do. That is different from the Second Amendment requiring the states to recognize the right to keep and bear arms.
This has become ridiculous. I am trying to be charitable, but this idea that, well, uh, yeah, the BOR sure did apply to the states is flat out false. Give it up. It’s become embarrassing - you don’t know what you are talking about. Really.
Idiocy. Marshall didn’t decide the case. The court did - unanimously. No dissenting opinions. Not a one.
Yet another error in your quest to show just how much you don’t about this stuff.
Morever, holding that the BOR didn’t apply to the states wasn’t “legislating from the bench”. There is no support for that argument - not in the text of the Constitution itself and not in the debates surrounding ratification of the BOR. The whole idea of the BOR was to institute restrictions of the federal government - that is why some folks said it was needed. Others said it was not needed, because the enumerated powers were enough protection. Go read up.
Moreover, the court decision was one that protected states’ rights - in the absence of a clear federal directive to the contrary, these federal rules would not be applied to the states and the states retained their right to do it their own way. Just read the opinion.
Enough, man. Seriously. I mean, I get it. You haven’t read this stuff. You don’t know about it. And you’re too proud to concede what you obviously don’t know. But it’s getting silly.
See what I mean? If you read my posts, it is me who has been pointing out the mess the 14th Amendment causes and how it was not designed to deal with incorporation of what amount to federal rights as they relate to race after the Civil War. Problem is, the language of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear.
It doesn’t “help” my particular brand of federalism - I am the one that has noted its problems, genius.
And, you better rethink your damnation of the 14th Amendment - it’s the only way the Second Amendment gets applied to the states, which you no doubt want. Otherwise, you don’t have an argument that the Second Amendment restricts a state’s regulation of arms. The 14th Amendment is your friend, if anyone’s.
Seriously, Push. Enough with the haughty “I’ve got it all figured out” when it’s clear you really haven’t spent much time on the topic.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And there are cases where states denied speedy trials, due process, free speech, free press, the right to assemble, etc. Big fooking deal. Our states and fed have screwed up for centuries. But our principles and their original intent are what they are.
Catch up.[/quote]
So, here we have, in the era of the Founders, states regulating arms, and the Founders didn’t object at the time, and they passed no federal law to stop states from doing it. So, they got it wrong, too?
Who knew? The Founders - who clearly were okay with some of these restrictions at the state levels - were apparently all wrong about the very Constitution they drafted and ratified.
Congratulations, you’re a “progressive”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sure, you can peddle your bicycle to 1842 to look for original intent all you want to, amigo. Keep peddling to the 1930’s even. Keep searching for decisions that violate original intent. You will keep right on making my point every time you do.[/quote]
Well, I prefer “original intent” to “making it up as a I go along”. I can be picky that way.
And, no, I’m not making your point for you. No one is, including you.
What these cases demonstrate is that some states believed they could regulate the ownership of arms, which is important, since this was during the time the Second Amendment didn’t apply to them. Historically, states have enjoyed the power to do so. Can’t understand “original intent” without understanding this fact.