Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today's growing number of radicalized liberals have been demonstrating less and less respect for the Constitution, nd even to duly passed Federal, state and local laws when those laws conflict with the leftist ideology. See "sanctuary cities", burning and destroying city streets in anti-Trump and BLM riots, etc.
What exactly ARE these people loyal to? What agenda DO they carefully follow, through thick and thin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove
Schools don't teach the Constitution or Civics anymore. It's intentional.
It absolutely is intentional. They began taking over the education system in the 50s. It's insidious and intended to undermine the US through belief engineering. One only needs read Rules for Radicals to understand their playbook.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
As for the Second Amendment, an originalist (or those herein that think they are) should ask: When the Framers wrote 'people', whom did they mean?
One problem I have with originalist, is that they tend to cherry-pick those Framers they wish to use to bolster any argument.
If one reads about the history of the Constitutional Convention, one discovers that you had 55 men, of various backgrounds and with various opinions. It is, to my mind, next to impossible to say "This is what the Framers meant" on any particular language, since the language was virtually always reached by compromise. Indeed, you had Framers that disliked a lot of the wording of the Constitution. May we only use their 'original' viewpoint?
I will note that in the Heller opinion, by Justice Scalia, he went back to sources indicating that the Second Amendment allowed for individuals to own handguns, despite Washington D.C.'s law otherwise (heretofore, the Court, which rarely addressed the Second, usually found that States may impose their own rules regarding gun ownership). When discussing the Militia language, Justice Scalia again cited several Framers, although on dissent, Justice Stephens pointed out contrary opinions by other Framers. Scalia prevailed, since four other Justices joined his opinion.
As for my question above, 'people' appears to have only meant white males. It was obviously not meant to include slaves (or free Blacks), and probably not even white women. We now recognize, liberal that we are, that the Second Amendment applies to all. We are going, perhaps, against the original intent of said language.
As for the Second Amendment, an originalist (or those herein that think they are) should ask: When the Framers wrote 'people', whom did they mean?
One problem I have with originalist, is that they tend to cherry-pick those Framers they wish to use to bolster any argument.
If one reads about the history of the Constitutional Convention, one discovers that you had 55 men, of various backgrounds and with various opinions. It is, to my mind, next to impossible to say "This is what the Framers meant" on any particular language, since the language was virtually always reached by compromise. Indeed, you had Framers that disliked a lot of the wording of the Constitution. May we only use their 'original' viewpoint?
I will note that in the Heller opinion, by Justice Scalia, he went back to sources indicating that the Second Amendment allowed for individuals to own handguns, despite Washington D.C.'s law otherwise (heretofore, the Court, which rarely addressed the Second, usually found that States may impose their own rules regarding gun ownership). When discussing the Militia language, Justice Scalia again cited several Framers, although on dissent, Justice Stephens pointed out contrary opinions by other Framers. Scalia prevailed, since four other Justices joined his opinion.
As for my question above, 'people' appears to have only meant white males. It was obviously not meant to include slaves (or free Blacks), and probably not even white women. We now recognize, liberal that we are, that the Second Amendment applies to all. We are going, perhaps, against the original intent of said language.
We probably have the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment that has ever existed. You are right, gun control measures were put into place when blacks started taking up arms. Some of the most restrictive gun control legislation passed was by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Mulford Act was created in response to armed Black Panther police watching, and their protest on the steps holding rifles increased the urgency of passing the act. Then followed Clinton's "assault weapons" ban.
Quote:
Republicans in California supported increased gun control. Governor Ronald Reagan was present when the protesters arrived and later commented that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."
Fact of the matter is the 2nd amendment was not created to protect "sport" or "hunting". This argument is weak. And while I'll concede the US military does have at its disposal weapons of mass destruction it could deploy against it's own citizens, Afghanistan and Iraq prove that a determined and armed guerilla force is not to be taken lightly.
I think we're seeing now that citizens are not willing to give up this Constitutional Right despite the risks. I think many gun control liberals are beginning to second guess the logic now that Trump is President. Basically the "shoe is on the other foot". But that is why the 2nd amendment is so important. Threats to our Rights will manifest on either side.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Today's growing number of radicalized liberals have been demonstrating less and less respect for the Constitution, nd even to duly passed Federal, state and local laws when those laws conflict with the leftist ideology. See "sanctuary cities", burning and destroying city streets in anti-Trump and BLM riots, etc.
What exactly ARE these people loyal to? What agenda DO they carefully follow, through thick and thin?
-----------------------------------------------
The US Constitution, is not compatible with Communism, much less socialism.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You love the 10th ammendment until a republican becomes president.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Once a republican becomes president ..... F---, the 10th ammendment
You people seem to ignore the bold in your claim of the 10th. That is, the current illegal immigration issues are powers that ARE delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. When you people use the feds for your schemes, you ignore the fact that your demands upon the states are not legally supported by the US Constitution.
The point is, you people could care less about the Constitution, you use it and dismiss it as you see fit.
Two words to conservatives about observing their Constitutional duty - Merrick Garland.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
