Everything is NOT negotiable

Anti-gun laws have never stopped a murder.

 

I didn't say that. There are two equal phrases here. First and foremost is the militia. The second is the "right of the people shall not be infringed" is the second. In the early days, the first 2a Supreme Court decision had to do with the militia and how it was in conflict, argued by some, with Article 1, Section 8, where the authority to raise an army was exclusively federal. It was not until the later part of the 19th century that the right to own became decided, and that is about 90 years of our nation's history from 1787, or thereabouts.

 

And by that argument, no traffic laws have stopped people from violating. Does this mean we should get rid of them too?

 

You cannot definitively say that; because, as has been pointed out, there's no way to know for sure. But, I'm not talking anti-gun laws, I'm talking pro-people and pro-mental health funding, that "may/should" impact violence of all kinds including mass shootings. IMHO, most of the ill's America is experiencing is a product of ripping the "social safety net" and good paying jobs out from under what was the upper lower class and the lower middle class that began with Ronald Regan. Those groups have fallen between the cracks in the ensuing years and "they're mad as hell and not going to take IT anymore". America needs to start focusing on and investing in Americans, not international corporations and wealthy people that don't need help.

 

You have to choose- are you going to have a standard of legal conduct, or just a general outline people can define for themselves?
Nothing is perfect for everyone.

The constitution was created to provide for change- just not careless, spontaneous ones. Our problems with people arguing the constitution come from a lack of reasonable consistency in our communication- and the same people who want to distort the constitution are working hard to make language negotiable. Do that, and law is negotiable. We are to the point that we have people in positions of authority saying the can't say what a woman is. People demanding that people pretending to be women be treated as women. People that decide they feel like a woman today, should be treated as if they were.
Given that, why not argue that a $100 bill made on your ink-jet home printer is as valid as one printed by the US Treasury? Is it unreasonable to say a counterfeit bill is not real? That a counterfeit woman is not a woman, but a man pretending? No matter how elaborate the pretense- it is still pretense. That is the fact, the truth. To support the pretense is like what's called the suspension of disbelief, your consent to abandoning truth; pretending fake is legitimate. Lying to yourself, to help someone else lie to themselves?? That can become a widespread practice- and is spreading, right now.

That is pure nonsense. If a society can't do better for itself than that, it WILL fail. That's up to you and I, we the people. We're tolerating it- buying into it, joining the mob mentality- and then blaming the result of that on persons of party who disagree with us.

That's what happens when words become negotiable, they loose their meaning- and we loose our understanding, our ability to communicate effectively with each other.
You can argue for the sake of objection; we are seeing that as some kind of a fad- but that is not a wise thing to do. It's a dangerous thing, to you, to everybody. It's childish, irresponsible- and it's going on at high levels.

It's incredible that the authors of the constitution were able to do such a brilliant job, keep their own minds straight and on track, and be able to envision so much of what might be needed in the future. And IF they had thought they were perfect, the constitution would not allow for it's own change and evolution.

The constitution is not designed to restrain the people- it's designed to restrain the government. The government has only the powers the constitution grants them. Thus the government has no authority to grant or limit most of the "rights" you speak of in the first place. It's not necessary to list what they can't do, because the limitation of what they can do excludes everything else. IF the people hold them to it. That is what the constitution is for- and if you allow it to be watered down casually, you destroy that restraint.... and your own protection.

The problems we are experiencing can generally be found to be the product of failing to follow the constitution. Because that is acceptable within government in many places, it's become a common practice, and that has created an environment of chaos instead of order, and we are living in that now. Nothing good can come out of that condition.

Interpretation is the process of settling on a meaning when things are ambiguous and could have alternate meaning. In the 2A, the first statement regarding a militia is in no way a reduction or condition of the second part- but a reason why the second part must be absolute. Study history and it's perfectly clear. A people are their own last line of defense, and often must be the first. The police are not there in advance to protect you- they come after the fact to try and find the criminal involved. You are the person most dependent on your own defense, you have the most to lose. therefore- the greatest obligation to self defense.

In the civil war, the Union was greatly outnumbered by the army of the Confederacy, and Lincoln recognized the need for more troops. So he put out a call for armed citizens, to volunteer- gather and form "militias", or defensive troops, and while they were to provide their own arms and equipment, they were under the authority of the regular army command- well regulated as a militia. The citizens overall are the "reserves". Lincoln called on. The size of the Union army doubled in about 30 days, by way of the second amendment. The probability of that need on the national basis may be quite small today- but it will never be zero, because power corrupts all governments if it is not controlled... and ours is poorly controlled right now. However the need on the home front is rising quickly, as crime increases and the police are reduced and handicapped. The 2A is not out of date, and not in question as to meaning for anyone not intent on usurping it.

The 2A does not protect criminals. It does not encourage them. Yet through the manipulation of terminology, we have people loving criminals and hating police.... Tearing down statues of Thomas Jefferson; putting up statues of George Floyd; thinking that if good people can't have guns, criminals won't have guns. The state of the people is far more unstable and ambiguous than the constitution.

 

'regulate' has NEVER had a LEGAL implication of discipline. Where are you getting that from?

...and remember 'the militia' is just about everyone, in legal terms. How would you propose 'discipline' be enforced on just about everyone?

 

Pathetic bs from a Trump supporter spouting any semblance of a care for the rule of law.

 

This premise goes entirely against your premise in your OP. Your premise is that there is no interpretation in the US Constitution. You have a couple of examples, with 2a among them, but if you are going to choose a legal standard, then that means interpretation and interpretation can change over time, can it?

It is not a manipulation of terminology. They use the Federalist Papers, the congressional records and the debates within, and a few others prime resources. They will even use "English Common law" with some definitions. But the point is that they do interpret the Constitution based on their specific methodology. Sometimes we divide it into one of five categories: textualism, originalism, "living" document or pragmatism, natural law, and judicial precedent.

 

We have many people- who simply argue for the sake of conflict. Unimportant crap gets treated as if it actually would make a difference, and the primary objectives get lot.
And is is a manipulation of words, of priorities, or interpretation. All those things can occur with objective and beneficial purpose, but that is not what I'm addressing- it is the pursuit of conflict, the intent to shift primary functions that insures things will only get worse.

People have tried to say "a well regulated militia" refers to armed forces. We do say "arms" does not include most weapons, weapons whose barrels are of certain lengths, weapon who fire too fast- because we prohibit or greatly encumber (infringe) on these things. So either we are distorting words to mean something different in one place than they do in another, and that is selective interpretation for convenience,.
This sets a "standard" that moves around. That is not a standard, it's an evasion. The term "Arms" applies to all weapons. knives, spears, tanks, bombs, missiles. We have "Arms dealers" as a term describing people who sell these to various countries- but for the purpose of the 2A, we choose to say that the terms doesn't include this or that. It's not saying that we should all keep heat-seeking missles on hand, to say that selective interpretation of a specific term IS manipulation of meaning. Multiple standard- that lends itself to permanent conflicts of opinion.

The guidelines we follow need to be stable, so that our society can be stable, find enough common ground to work together instead of bickering for petty victories over what a single word is or is not. It's the nonsense arguments that disturb this the most, because they have no rational end- that's what nonsense is. To govern effectively and justly, we must have order. To have order, we must have stability in our fundamental purpose and values. Orderly change- not chaos.

No matter how clearly things are written down, no matter how stable their relationship to reality and our purpose, there will always be some fool insisting they mean something else- just to destabilize the system and inject nonsense. You can pay attention to that, or join that. I won't validate it or recognize it. It has NO merit.

I've always loved this little cartoon, because it so perfectly illustrates the "nonsense" state of mind-

 

Good luck upholding your laws against abortion.

We know who's behind taking away women's rights...

Perhaps you should have thought about how women would react before passing laws that intend to force women to give birth to their rapist's baby.

Uh huh Like this...?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​

 

Not surprising you think a woman's right to control her body should be subject to a vote.

Women's rights are a big joke? I think you're going to find women will defy your anti-abortion laws and work to have them repealed.

 

Voters get to decide the terms of abortion. But it sounds like you support giving birth then allowing the baby to die on the table.
Not surprised

So thats your best effort at comprehending this sentence

Again, not surprised

Typical left comments. Its always all or nothing exaggerations. But I believe abortion rights are on the menu for midterms.
What are you going to say tomorrow when voters decide to rid themselves of these authoritarian Democrats that claim if you vote for conservatives you destroy democracy?
People are tired of these leftist endless sky is falling exaggerations.

Its no different than you stating I think womens rights are a big joke when I actually claimed leftist trying to hide behind right to privacy for abortion rights is the big joke.
And we all really appreciate how dedicated the left (like yourself) have been to providing these exaggerations which made this midterm choice so easy.

 

Quite literally, the 2a begins with "A well-regulated militia." The National Guard is our present day "well regulated militia. But when this country was founded, the biggest fear that the founding fathers had was an overbearing government, even the one we created, a Constitutional Republic. When we won our independence, and all the dust settled, we had no more than 700 regular soldiers. That was it. When the US Constitution was ratified, we had a grand total of two regiments of 700 soldiers each. That was it. The rest were militia. In fact, that was our thinking until AFTER the War of 1812 when we began to think differently to have a standing army with trained professional officers. That is how Annoloplis and West Point came to pass. The Founding fathers did not see ownership of a firearm as a "right." That was something introduced in the mid 19th century, as early as the 1820s. And we didn't get a large standing army until AFTER WW2 in order to keep the peace. And we still do that based on our lessons learned from prior through WW2.

Again, common ground with the 2a will be more enforceable background checks, making sure that certain types of firearms are limited to the public that is considered dangerous to the general public, and so forth. Some call for an "assault weapons" ban. Others call for a change in thinking in how we view and rationalize gun ownership. I have no problems with firearms for self-defense as long as you know how to use it in public. That means a criminal background check, training, and a license to do so for conceal carry. Open carry is just "kids" who think this is the "wild, wild, west." Not even the wild, wild west was like that, except in TV shows like Gunsmoke, Bonanza, etc. We have young kids who will purchase multiple weapons using their parent's or grandparents' credit cards, people who have firearms and purchase hundreds of rounds of bullets all of a sudden, and no one stops to ask questions before completing the purchase. Why? because of our indifference to the 2a, that is why.

The rest of your post is pure rubbish. You talk about "common sense" and then proceed that nothing should be common sense at all because the 2a should not be interpreted at all, along with the rest of the US constitution. And that is pure hogwash, shows a lack of understanding of what the US Constitution really means, etc. And that is why interpretation is the key, based on the precise facts of the case, not political gamesmanship as you are prescribing. And that is a non sequitur argument in and of itself.

 

You have quite the imagination.

The 2nd is not clear.

 

Because the words shall not be infringed isn't clear enough for you? lol
Glad the SCOTUS already ruled on it.
Sorry bout your luck

 

So your rubbish is not rubbish, but mine is. That's a very practical solution; it eliminates the need to consider anything you don't care to deal with. The founding fathers would have never imagined they had to write a national code that would need to cope with that kind of perspective. I guess they under-estimated the nature of 21st century citizens. Gave us too way too much credit.

I wonder- if the founding fathers did not see the ownership of firearms as a right, why the hell did they say it "shall not be infringed"? Maybe they just failed to realize that in our time, we would be confused about what those words mean, as we are about our own gender- no longer able to be sure if we are female or male or "other"....
Does "shall not" only apply on the sabbath? Yeah. Maybe that's what they meant.

Roughly 60% of our population reads at a level of 6th grade or below. Comprehension is less. It shows.

 

Should I retaliate for your jackass claim by saying you want women to die getting illegal abortions?

Says the extreme rightwinger who thinks someone who supports school vouchers, medical vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, etc. is a leftist.

You must not get out much. Voters I talk with want something done to insure the safety of ourselves, families, friends and community. They want to be able to earn (note the emphasis) enough to pay for shelter, food and medical care. In essence, the typical full-time worker today hasn't had a pay increase in forty years. Part-time workers and older workers with outdated skills are worse off than that.


Now, I have my own bias, so I'm not sure they agree even though most say they do. We need to swear off gun-grabbing, and telling women they have to stay pregnant and give birth. We should help drug addicts instead of locking them up.

I think Canada has the right idea in having no abortion law. They also have a lower abortion rate than in this country.

Women are second class citizens if society can demand they stay pregnant and give birth.

You folks just can't MYOB.

 

And hows that workin out for the voters you talk too with Historical inflation, Historical gas prices, Historical grocery prices, and Historical illegal crossings?
You are getting ready to find out what Americans feel about your Biden boot licking and your secret voters you talk too in just 24 hours.
I can't wait.

 

You just failed logic.

 

Says the guy who can't understand the 2nd amendment because the words shall not be infringed isn't clear enough for him.
Then claims others fail logic lol

 

You didn't read what I wrote?

I'd ask if you're okay, but I know the answer.

My prediction is the GOP gets the House and Senate.

Street crime, inflation and inaction on illegals are going to put Democrats out. It would have been a bigger rout if Republicans hadn't run so many lame candidates.

 

You try and try. And fail.

 

But you prove my points over and over
Thank you for that

 

You and Trump.

Says the guy in the Reality Free Zone.

You were wrong about respirators...



... wrong about covid vaccines and

... wrong about economics.

 

Speaking of fantasy land, I never discussed respirators, or Covid vaccines, or economics with you.
So you enjoy those Trump memes while the adults discuss the OP.