are you ever going to take a position and tell us the following 1) what was the purpose of the second 2) what was the purpose of the 14th what do those two do in combination?
it is just unbelievable that anyone can actually believe that the second was anything OTHER than a negative restriction on the federal government. It became a negative restriction on the state governments through the fourteenth amendment
Again, I will agree with you that there was a federal restriction of power in the second and, again, point out to you that the last 13 words of the second (probably the most misinterpreted words in The Constitution) was that aforementioned limitation of federal power...Who can't infringe on the arms rights of citizens of states in the union according to the second? The answer is the federal can't infringe on the arms rights of the citizens of the union. Matter of fact, if some state constitution explicitly forbade regulations on state militias, for example, the second would be null and void for that state due to the federal limitation of the last 13 words in the second. BTW, the second was outdated when the US allowed standing armies to protect the federal government...Why don't you blow another gasket on that statement?
I am STILL LAUGHING over your inane claim that the first part of the second amendment somehow delegated ADDITIONAL POWERS to the federal government that were not contained in Article One Section EIGHT ONCE AGAIN-the ONLY reason for the second amendment was a NEGATIVE RESTRICTION ON the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Again, the reason for amendments to The Constitution is to change The Constitution. Look, I've known all along you were a neocon. That you're closed minded and have set political precepts and strictly adhere to them and you wouldn't encourage or entertain a logical discussion which diverted from your political framework. The founders (actual conservatives) warned of people like you who resist free speech and engage in authoritarianism, for examples. Bye.
I'm back. Look, I know that the founders found no need to clarify arms usage in The Constitution just like the founders found no need to clarify eating or pooping, for examples, because arms ownership, eating and pooping was self-evident in 1781 and didn't need to be clarified in The Constitution. Sidenote: Maybe you're experiencing the possibilities of the same horror of the abortion advocate after Roe V. Wade was overturned???Could the interpretation of the 2ND amendment be overturned? I mean, it happened to Roe V. Wade. I doubt you're experiencing the same anguish, but do you have a little more empathy for the reactions of Roe V. Wade advocates after the overturn of Roe V. Wade? Second sidenote: I think SCOTUS should be ashamed for overreaching in their decisions of redefining the original meaning of the 2ND for future purposes. I think, SCOTUS would've served the union and themselves better by saying there was nothing in the 2ND which comes to any conclusions of 'universal arms rights for Americans' and, instead, demand some sort of arms amendment to The Constitution, for example, to fill that gap. In other words, for example, SCOTUS shouldn't have redefined the meaning of the 2ND and overreached to protect slaves who're charged by a former slave holding state for defending themselves with arms.
Cite it. Copy and paste the text that supports your position. Oh wait. You won't. Because it does not exist. Prove otherwise.
The SCOTUS didn’t, you are. The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, RIGHTS Owned by THE PEOPLE . The Founders wrote extensively about their belief in the individual RIGHT and necessity of firearm ownership. Which has been affirmed and clarified by OUR Supreme Court. Those are the facts, no matter how much you may wish otherwise.
you're just mad that you are ignorant of the bill of rights. the bill of rights was purely a negative restriction on the federal government. You want to pretend that "well regulated" somehow confers to the federal government additional powers not recognized in Article One Section Eight You don't even know what NEOCON means.
Roe V Wade would only be pertinent IF the Constitution granted the right to. (or even mentioned AT ALL) abortion; but it doesn't.
has anyone figured out what he is actually claiming the supreme court did that he calls over extending> He seems unable to comprehend the concept of fourteenth amendment incorporation
Scalia did. However, you just said probably the most ridiculous things anybody has said in this thread (and that takes some doing) "Normal linguistic patters of Americans in 1791" is called "the English Language."You just said you don't trust English as a way to communicate. Despite the fact that you obviously don't realize it, that is EXACTLY what you just said means. Of course, if you don't trust English, it's impossible to hold a rational discussion with you in ENGLISH. So you should state your preferred form of communication. I assume that if you don't trust English, you don't trust History either. Because the two other threads I mentioned, which are in English, CONFIRM everything the Linguistics threads concluded. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ell-regulated-militia.589757/#post-1072757880
It is how it works from time to time. Citizen's United, Dobbs, Hobby Lobby... Except Heller was worse because Scalia actually INCLUDED historical and linguistic pseudo-arguments that were easily debunked by the most prominente historians and linguists in the country, as the different OPs show. Anyway, Heller is not the topic of this thread. The OP of the different threads provides quotes, references and links. And not a single one of the responses addresses those quotes, references or links. So from any viewpoint you care to see this, my point is made.
once again-do you deny that the founders believed American citizens had an individual right to own, use , buy, keep and bear arms at a federal level?
Here's a beginning. Read the passage on the passage of the second amendment. The book is "The First Congress" by Fergus M. Bordewich. https://www.amazon.com/First-Congress-Washington-Extraordinary-Government/dp/1451692110
