Founders? Founders? Fuck “the Founders”. They never claimed to be super citizens or monarchs. This democracy or a representative republic, i.e., votes matter, i.e., sucks to be dead cause dead votes don’t count.
Example: Oh no … Hawaii has been bombed! What should we do? Let’s ask the Founders! Yeah. Hey, Founders – Hawaii has been attacked. What should we do? Founders: Hawaii?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
smh, you ignored my question.[/quote]
Sorry, thought I began with this (on a Kindle right now, annoying as hell):
As Jewbacca noted, this is a bit of an anachronistic and therefore nonsensical question (obviously). That said, I believe that the Second Amendment is agnostic…(continued in what I actually posted).
In other words, the Amendment doesn’t explicitly address the question and I do not believe that it was the intent of its authors to forever disallow any restriction on any extant or conceivable weapon or weapons system.
Therefore, if a restriction is deemed both necessary and reasonable (as was the case with Brandenburg v. Ohio and its curtailment of First Amendment rights), it can be imposed without violation of the Bill of Rights. (Note: denial of this point is tantamount to an affirmation of the following claim: the United States government is Constitutionally barred from stopping an American citizen from obtaining any weapon up to and including grenade and rocket launchers, ICBMs, and fissile material.)
Therefore, the criminalization of certain weapons based on their features and specifications (including clip size) is theoretically Constitutional.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ll have more to say, smh, don’t you worry.
However, my answer has actually already been given wayyyyyyy back up yonder ^^^.
You musta missed it.[/quote]
I think I did.
I’m not being difficult here: can you restate it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ll have more to say, smh, don’t you worry.
However, my answer has actually already been given wayyyyyyy back up yonder ^^^.
You musta missed it.[/quote]
I think I did.
I’m not being difficult here: can you restate it.[/quote]
The founders indicated that any weapon used by a 18th century infantryman would be a weapon used by a militiaman which should be a protected right of “the people.”
The founders insisted on guaranteeing personal arms primarily as a protection from a tyrannical government.
It was not about hunting.
It was not about shooting clay pigeons.
It was not about marksmanship contests.
It was not about plinking at 18th century grog bottles out yonder in ye ol’ tobacco field.
It really wasn’t even about individual self defense against common criminals.
It WAS about individual and collective self defense against a criminal government.
So if we combine the thoughts behind items 1 and 2 we can percolate up the idea that any weapon capable of being handled by the common man, in other words any weapon that the common man could/would “bear” would be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment so that such man could defend his life and property, AND together with his other fellow men, pose a formidable force, a deterrent, against a rogue government.
FWIW, I’m convinced Judge Scalia, among many others, would concur. [/quote]
Not bad.
This includes, then, MPADS?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Second Amendment, as written, is agnostic with respect to legal restrictions on certain weapons.[/quote]
This is simply not true. The first part of the amendment give a general guideline for the types of weapons under discussion, but you wouldn’t know that because you’ve apparently never read the first part.
It does not qualify them as weapons for self defense. It does not qualify them by use in hunting. It specifically qualifies them as weapons for a militia to resist state tyranny. While that doesn’t give you specifics for full auto vs. semi auto or some other debate, it’s a far cry from agnostic.
Edit, should have read push first.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Second Amendment, as written, is agnostic with respect to legal restrictions on certain weapons.[/quote]
While that doesn’t give you specifics for full auto vs. semi auto or some other debate, it’s a far cry from agnostic.[/quote]
“[It] doesn’t give you specifics for full auto vs. semi auto or some other debate.” Or, to paraphrase: the Second Amendment, as written, is agnostic with respect to legal restrictions on certain weapons.
Try it this way: in order to prove me incorrect, you will have to prove my claim’s opposite to be true:
The Second Amendment, as written, renders any legal restriction on any weapon explicitly unconstitutional.
Good luck with that.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This includes, then, MPADS?[/quote]
What about easily concealable handguns?[/quote]
Seems they would be just fine under your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And it seems that MPADS would as well.
No?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Abedd Ame wrote:
Founders? Founders? Fuck “the Founders”. They never claimed to be super citizens or monarchs. This democracy or a representative republic, i.e., votes matter, i.e., sucks to be dead cause dead votes don’t count.
Example: Oh no … Hawaii has been bombed! What should we do? Let’s ask the Founders! Yeah. Hey, Founders – Hawaii has been attacked. What should we do? Founders: Hawaii?[/quote]
Nice. I suppose there’s no need for elections to address governmental issues because we can put down our ballots and pick up ouija boards to consult with the founders! Yay!
Wait … what’s that? You mean to say Scalia really can’t commune with the dead? And, there are other judges who consistently disagree with his opinions? AND, Scalia’s opinions are not the end all and be all of constitutional interpretation? Well that’s a bother.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Abedd Ame wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Abedd Ame wrote:
Founders? Founders? Fuck “the Founders”. They never claimed to be super citizens or monarchs. This democracy or a representative republic, i.e., votes matter, i.e., sucks to be dead cause dead votes don’t count.
Example: Oh no … Hawaii has been bombed! What should we do? Let’s ask the Founders! Yeah. Hey, Founders – Hawaii has been attacked. What should we do? Founders: Hawaii?[/quote]
Nice. I suppose there’s no need for elections to address governmental issues because we can put down our ballots and pick up ouija boards to consult with the founders! Yay!
Wait … what’s that? You mean to say Scalia really can’t commune with the dead? And, there are other judges who consistently disagree with his opinions? AND, Scalia’s opinions are not the end all and be all of constitutional interpretation? Well that’s a bother.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Fun. We should ask the founders to write a caption!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
This includes, then, MPADS?[/quote]
What about easily concealable handguns?[/quote]
Seems they would be just fine under your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
And it seems that MPADS would as well.
No?[/quote]
I asked for your opinion. Not mine. I happen to know what mine is.
[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with handguns.
Now, MANPADS?