The US Constitution (not the ship)

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, that's false. I cite the entire 2nd Amendment, unlike the NRA and the gun fanciers. Its one sentence, there are no "parts", just two clauses. I cite both, gun fanciers prefer to do some editing.

And I'm not "anti-2nd Amendment"

I'm anti "doing your own editing of the 2nd Amendment". Gun fanciers have invented the fiction that their edited version of the 2nd Amendment is "the truth", but its easy enough to see the bad faith and bad logic in omitting half of a very short sentence to change its meaning.

Read the whole thing, understand what the Militia was, and that the prospect of the Federal Government disarming the Militias (which belonged to the States, but which was under Federal command) was a real and practical concern at the time, and you understand what the 2nd Amendment is about. I'm entirely supportive of that.

What I'm "anti" is editing the 2nd Amendment and then claiming that its about the personal right to a firearm, when it plainly wasn't.

Once again, the folks who wrote it could have said "Every person has a right to own a weapon for his own defense".

They could have said that; but it ain't what they said.

Read the Founding Fathers, the Federalist (and Anti-Federalist) and other writings of the time.

This is why the debate in the SCOTUS isn't about what the 2nd Amendment says. It's about whether or not we should interpret it in the present, or when it was written.

Because if you interpret it at the time it is written, there's no debate.

The fact that Madison et al. wrote the 1st and 2nd Amendments from the dozens upon dozens of submissions like they did explains everything. The British said Americans had free speech and had the right to bear arms, but they could not choose to freely assemble as a group.

The #1 complaints of the American people with the British, and why the supermajority of the states refused to ratify the US Constitution until they were protected, where ...
- No free press
- No free militia

The right of assembly is an individual right, not granted by the government any more than the British crown. Which means the right to assemble is not possible if only the government can define the group. Do you understand that? Do you see that? The British said only the crown could define a press or militia. They said Americans had the right to free speech and the right to firearms ... individually ... but not the right to assemble as a group into a press or militia.

Did you not study 1774-1775?
First it was the press they went after.
And then they went after a militia ...

And that's when the fighting began! That's why true, critical thinking Liberals consider the 1st and 2nd Amendments intertwined ... because they were from Day 1! This used to be the foundation of the Republican party from inception until the late '60s, before they changed their ways.

It's also why when the President called Fox News an illegitimate news outlet, and it was shown he was tapping AP and other phones right after he assumed office in 2009 before the Korean leak, that he was seriously messing with the 1st Amendment. And the news media let him know how they felt about that and he backed off.

The fact that you brought up other things you didn't even bother to read just shows you're using the MSNBC and Progressive-Democratic playbook. True, critically thinking Liberals never make these arguments. I mean, militias answer to the President of the United States?

Did you even understand what happened in Lexington and Concord? Do you even understand why the 2nd Amendment was written like it was?

Now ...

If you want to make the argument that the governor of a state can certify militias, I'll listen to that. I've been all for states requiring militias to have regular 'meet ups' so they can 'peer review' and 'report on one another.' That would go a long way to finding out which people could be 'issues,' especially in the seeming comfort of a group of non-law enforcement.

But militias are not at the beg'n call of the President. They never have been. They never will be. Read up! Your views are scary.

I'm also alive today, and have never been raped, because of a militia. Even the US military cited them for their good work during Katrina. That's what militias are and what militias do. They are everyday citizens, looking out for and serving their fellow citizens of their state, or when another state calls for them, as was in my case.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by profvolup

The fact that you brought up other things you didn't even bother to read just shows you're using the MSNBC and Progressive-Democratic playbook. True, critically thinking Liberals never make these arguments.

Gosh, is "reading the Constitution completely without doing my own editing" -- that's something from the "MSNBC and Progressive-Democratic playbook" ?

Unlike gun fanciers, who edit the Constitution to suit their fancy.

See, my naive assumption is that we should read the whole thing, and not substitute our own edits for what's written.

[cginok]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Gosh, is "reading the Constitution completely without doing my own editing" -- that's something from the "MSNBC and Progressive-Democratic playbook" ?

Unlike gun fanciers, who edit the Constitution to suit their fancy.

See, my naive assumption is that we should read the whole thing, and not substitute our own edits for what's written.

Both sides have been doing just exactly that since before the ink dried. Explain something to me. The Bill of Rights, which is actually only the first 8 amendments, are individual rights. How are amendments 1 and 3 through 8 about individual rights, but the second one isn't? Why was it included in the Bill of Rights, which once again is about individual rights, but yet it isn't an individual right?

I should explain why I said the Bill of Rights is only the the first 8 amendments. Amendments 9 and 10 are not about individual rights. They are about states rights and a catch all amendment. They are, erroneously, included in the Bill of Rights because they were all passed at the same time.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, that's false. I cite the entire 2nd Amendment, unlike the NRA and the gun fanciers. Its one sentence, there are no "parts", just two clauses. I cite both, gun fanciers prefer to do some editing.

And I'm not "anti-2nd Amendment"

I'm anti "doing your own editing of the 2nd Amendment". Gun fanciers have invented the fiction that their edited version of the 2nd Amendment is "the truth", but its easy enough to see the bad faith and bad logic in omitting half of a very short sentence to change its meaning.

Read the whole thing, understand what the Militia was, and that the prospect of the Federal Government disarming the Militias (which belonged to the States, but which was under Federal command) was a real and practical concern at the time, and you understand what the 2nd Amendment is about. I'm entirely supportive of that.

What I'm "anti" is editing the 2nd Amendment and then claiming that its about the personal right to a firearm, when it plainly wasn't.

Once again, the folks who wrote it could have said "Every person has a right to own a weapon for his own defense".

They could have said that; but it ain't what they said.

Have you ever read any writings by the Framers? That would be a NO!
As I stated there are plenty of writings by Maddison and other framers that make it so clear that even an ideologue would have to admit it was their intention to create an individual right to keep arms. There is nothing in any of the framers writings that what remotely suggest that it was their intent to limit gun ownership to members of a militia.

I too am anti editing but the difference between you and I is that I am not arrogant enough to insist I am right when there so much evidence to the contrary. Try reading the Federalist Papers then read the anti-Federalist papers. I could cite where you could find writings on the 2nd in these 2 sets of documents but you really seem in desperate need of schooling.

While I really do believe you would benefit greatly from reading the entire Federalist papers I'll give you a link: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm

"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."
Chief Justice William Howard Taft. (Yes he was also President)

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Gosh, is "reading the Constitution completely without doing my own editing" -- that's something from the "MSNBC and Progressive-Democratic playbook"?
Unlike gun fanciers, who edit the Constitution to suit their fancy.

You mean by actually reading what was written at the time? The over 100 submissions that eventually made it into the draft?

Originally Posted by deepsepia

See, my naive assumption is that we should read the whole thing, and not substitute our own edits for what's written.

No one made any of the arguments then that you are making now. That is fact, and it is not even disputed by the SCOTUS!

Ever read Shakespeare? Does it make more sense if you read the current events of the era? Exact same concept. If you are ignorant of what the #1, #2, #3, #4, etc... 'complaints' with the British were, you aren't going to understand the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... Amendments.

Remember, Americans had few problems with the British before 1770. Then that all changed.

Now the British always asserted Americans had the right to bear arms, but not the right to assemble into a militia. It asserted only the crown had that right. Americans counter-asserted that the individual is the power of the militia! Only the individual holds the power of the right to assemble. That's where the chaffing started!

Exact same thing for the 1st Amendment with regards to a Press. That's why since Day 1 they are considered intertwined. Because first it was the Press, then the Militia. Americans argued individuals decide what is a Press and what is a Militia, not the government!

What you're arguing, and what the SCOTUS argues over, is that what was written then does not matter, but only how we want to interpret it today. That's the difference. But no one argued back then whether or not the individual right to bear arms should be infringed. It was tied to being able to raise a militia without the approval of the government!

Because even the militias at Concord and Lexington were not authorized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!

The whole freak'n violent revolution started because individuals grabbed their weapons and assembled into an unauthorized militia! The British crown ordered the redcoats to seize the stockpiles of an unauthorized militia.

And the non-violent revolution started before that because individuals were assembling into an unauthorized press! The British crown decided the American press had to be controlled, and only the crown could define it as well.

^^^ This is what Americans mean by not knowing their history! 1-2 historical reality!

You want to say ...

- That never occurred, or ...
- It wasn't important if it did occurred anyway, or ...
- It had nothing to do with the 1st and 2nd Amendments of The Bill of Rights

You ever hear of the concept of those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it? That's it right there. The Bill of Rights was all about preventing the people from revolting against the new crown!

And that's why the people of 9 of the original 13 States refused to sign The Constitution!!!

[bowlinggreen]

If we could steer away from the gun thing for a moment, I was wondering what you folks in the UK think of our first amendment. I know you have "hate-speech" laws over there, and you have religious figures still sitting in the House of Lords, which is anathema to how we do things in the USA.

How good do you think your system is compared to ours in that respect?

Personally, I can't imagine giving up free speech, even if it is used on occasion to hurt other people.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

If we could steer away from the gun thing for a moment, I was wondering what you folks in the UK think of our first amendment. I know you have "hate-speech" laws over there, and you have religious figures still sitting in the House of Lords, which is anathema to how we do things in the USA.

How good do you think your system is compared to ours in that respect?

Personally, I can't imagine giving up free speech, even if it is used on occasion to hurt other people.

Indeed, I would love to get input from those in the EU in general.

Denying the Holocaust is not illegal in the US. That's why when Iran claimed it is the one of the few countries where it could host such a conference that openly questioned the holocaust, they were quite mistaken. I really would enjoy the view of those from the EU on that.

[SanteeFats]

Here is a question that has occurred to me. Obama is out of serving time, we have a POTUS elect but not sworn in so he can't actually take office. What happens if Trump dies or is incapacitated before he is sworn in?? The VP can't replace him re: not sworn in either. Just curious.

[bowlinggreen]

Wouldn't it automatically devolve to the sitting Speaker of the House?

[Markster]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Here is a question that has occurred to me. Obama is out of serving time, we have a POTUS elect but not sworn in so he can't actually take office. What happens if Trump dies or is incapacitated before he is sworn in?? The VP can't replace him re: not sworn in either. Just curious.

Check out the 20th Amendment, Section 3.