Everything is NOT negotiable

Ok, so you don't apply the same standard to the people you support. Didn't think so. Thanks for admitting. That kind of honesty is refreshing.

 

Then why did The Founders even mention the militia? As I said the Second Amendment is the exception that proves the rule that OUR Constitution is well written. We have "generally agreed" to interpret other parts of OUR Constitution differently than originally worded, the EC for instance was originally meant to keep unqualified shysters from "obtaining the office of the Highest Magistrate", by relying on the, the supposedly better educated and wiser, EC members to vote against the will of the people if necessary. But, today the States have made it against their law for EC electors to vote against the popular vote; as an example not a comment on what I think of that change. Clearly, when it suits us, we CAN change how we INTERPRET OUR Constitution.

 

Your preaching to those who will apply everything you say to Trump. Its all they have.
They don't want absolutism. They thrive in ambiguity, word twisting, and magical new definitions when ever they need them.
Which is why they hate conservatives on the SCOTUS. They don't want anyone who might uphold the constitution. They want to reimagine what the constitution says
and apply it where they need it.

They have tried for years to redefine the 2nd amendment to say what they want it to say instead of the actual words written.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Now magically means, only if your in a militia, or only applies to flint locks, or only applies to deer hunters, or is just an outdated concept that should be removed.

Democrats are only for abortion rights if its mandated. They don't want the people to decide by vote. That would be disastrous for them as we are now seeing.
But they can't find any place in the constitution that provides it so its on to more ambiguity and claim its covered under right to privacy. lol

If you support not allowing 5 year olds to have trans and gay sexuality conversations with teachers, your now claiming all LGTBQ are pedophiles.
And I can point you to the actual post making such claims

Biden and his Democrat puppeteers knew it was against the constitution to mandate mask (and admitted such) but decided to do it anyway under the guise of work related issues until the SCOTUS shut them down

Anyone who doesn't believe Biden received over 80 million votes are election deniers, but Democrats denying the results of the 2016 election are patriots. And instead of allowing the duly elected president to do his job, just threw idiotic temper tantrums over it which still persist today.

I could go on all day but the point is, Democrats live for ambiguity and any reasonable assertion that anything has an absolute meaning might impend their politics.

 

if there is evidence and due process, of course. why did trump NOT "lock her up" if there was so much evidence?

 

Because the existence of a militia was the reason the people had the right to keep and bear arms as protection from a rogue militia, or a militia committing atrocities under orders from the government.

Read the history of Colonial America and you can see how they wanted the people to be prepared to defend against that possibility.

 

Because the president can't lock anyone up. But, you know that.

No need to crawfish now, because you've already demonstrated very plainly that you want people you hate to be held to a different standard vs people you adore.

 

what is all that stuff about "well regulated?" does that mean that the people can nbot be regulated? article 1 gives congress the authority to regulate the militia. is that negated by the 2nd amendment?

 

I have read the history of "Colonial America". That aside, why did you ignore the points of my post, for instance, what "the militia" is has changed dramatically in these last 240 years. The only "rogue militia's" we have currently are RW Radial's that would love to take down OUR Constitutional Government by the people and install tRaitor tRump as their autocrat. Which was proven on January 6, 2021.

 

no, i have not because

1. i do not "adore" any human or supernatural thing real or imaginary. and

2. democrats, republicans, people of all races religions economic classes and ideologies should be held to the same standards and follow the same laws.

 

"the history of colonial america." i've been waiting for that one to come out since martin started writing "the winds of winter." the closest i can get on amazon are howard zinn's "people's history of the united states and something about "1619" project."

perhaps if wild bill could be more specific .......

`

 

of course.

 

However, in the effort to speak a truth, you have no power over the way people will hear it. You speak it and hope that it will help some, at least those who are willing to question their own position, will examine it.
I never assume to hope for anything more. I'm totally familiar with the denials, the mirroring, the intransigence of some mindsets. Sometimes, you plant a seed that will grow into a new perspective, but most of the time is remains overwhelmed by the weeds.....

 

Hear, hear

Well said

 

I think shall not be infringed is pretty concrete.
The 3rd prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes,
The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonable search and seizure
A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy)
People have the right against self-incrimination
Cannot be imprisoned without due process of law
The right to a jury trial
The right to assemble or gather with a group to protest

These are not negotiable and can't be reimagined.

And nobody left out the part (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State). because the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is a second statement as asserted and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS.

And no mater how many times you try and dispute it, you can't reimagine what it means because it is chiseled in granite.

 

I don't think any of us can say the constitution is absolutely flawless- but it's by far and away better than any comparable document in history.
On the other hand, we can certainly say that most of the apparent failures laid on the constitution come from failures of leadership to honor and follow
the constitution. You and I are on the same page here.

 

Do you really believe that the same people that wrote THE greatest document ever written BY man FOR men would allow it to become a ball and chain that would keep them from protecting the lives of the loved ones they WROTE it for? OUR Constitution is NOT chiseled in granite, it was written on fine parchment to be a living, breathing servant of the PEOPLE. The Founders did NOT come down from "the mount", they submitted THEIR document, GIVEN to the PEOPLE to be approved and adopted. OUR Constitution IS the PEOPLE'S document, created to serve them not enslave them.

 

Then, you just posted what you should consider a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Another great example in recent years are the BLM/ANTIFA riots.

Here's an historical example that should get your attention...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-free-state-jones-180958111/

 

It is chiseled in granite and the only way to change it is to chisel another amendment, in granite, that repeals any part of it

 

We know that isn't true. Don't we?

 

We allllll know you don't believe that. If you did, you would be calling for Clinton to be charged and prosecuted and for Biden to be thoroughly investigated for his ties to foreign countries.

 

The people are members of the militia. By your logic, Congress has the power to force the people to wear uniforms, ascribed by the Congress.

 

Would you consider the phrase 'Give me liberty or give me death!' to be suggestive of a negotiation?

 

Your wait is over...

https://www.google.com/search?q=the..._RwpoY4GYKpmtqtsPhqObuAo_21:538.6666870117188

 

In the context of the late 1700's, 'regulate' was more commonly used to mean 'ensure adequate supply' and/or 'maintain cohesion of operation', like a 'regulator' on a piece of machinery does. But since 'regulate' did also technically mean 'limit by force of law' (though it was far less commonly used in that sense than it is today, because back then they just called it 'the law'), lets assume 'regulate' in the 2A must mean 'to limit by force of law'. Which additional regulations (laws) do you think need to be applied to the militia, given that the militia is defined in US Code as 'all able-bodied male citizens age 17-45' (and logically extends also to include women, the disabled and the elderly because we are such an inclusive society that strictly enforcing this definition would be political suicide)? We The People are already subject to a very large number of regulations (laws), and thus so is 'the militia.' It stands to reason that since the laws we're governed by are legislated (representatively) by us, that we (and thus, the militia) are 'well' enough regulated.

If we use the more common 1700s definition of regulate, there certainly could be an argument that 'the militia' (we the people) need to be better trained and supplied (regulated)... but the Civil Defense initiative of the 60's unfortunately seems to have officially died with JFK.

 

You obviously don't know what the constitution is or why it was written. Which is why it was written to protect the PEOPLE from ideologies.
It is a ball and chain for the government, not the people. It was written to protect the PEOPLE from the GOVERNMENT.

It is as solid as it would be if it was etched in granite because YOU and YOUR PARTY can't reimagine it as you will.
The ONLY way it can be changed is with 2/3rds agreement from the states.

And thats why having extreme leftist as SCOTUS justices is so dangerous. They have this idea they can just rule how they feel instead of what the constitution directs