Jump to content
Spaztecs

100-year-old Holocaust survivor compares Trump to Hitler

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

The 2A was mostly designed in support of militias, which many of the framers believed to be a preferred alternative to a standing army, which they viewed as expensive and a potential tool of a future monarchist. Their view was that militias could be drafted in service of the union.

However, to your point, few if any would’ve haven’t against the idea of owning weapons as a necessary means of self defense. Because of this, I have no legal issues with the way the 2A is currently interpreted.

Also, Hamilton for the win again.

 

I hate it when I have to use that slimy bastard in defense!!!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

The 2A was mostly designed in support of militias, which many of the framers believed to be a preferred alternative to a standing army, which they viewed as expensive and a potential tool of a future monarchist. Their view was that militias could be drafted in service of the union.

However, to your point, few if any would’ve been against the idea of owning weapons as a necessary means of self defense. Because of this, I have no legal issues with the way the 2A is currently interpreted.

Also, Hamilton for the win again.

Right the question at debate isn’t if self defense is a valid reason of the second Amendment.  It is.   The question is as shown in 46, is the 2nd Amendment largely about defending against a despot...

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. Tothese would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. 
 

and if you claim it can’t happen here as HMHB has done, what does that mean for arms clearly designed for war and not self defense.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Right the question at debate isn’t if self defense is a valid reason of the second Amendment.  It is.   The question is as shown in 46, is the 2nd Amendment largely about defending against a despot...

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. Tothese would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. 
 

and if you claim it can’t happen here as HMHB has done, what does that mean for arms clearly designed for war and not self defense.   

Read the legal writings of the framers.  Read what they wrote.  READ.  They did not mince words.  The 2A is a lot of things, a right to private self defense being one.  READ.

Arms meant for war?  Lol the rifle is the most protected arm.  

 

Industry group defines performance specifications for 8K televisions -  TechSpot Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for selfdefense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."'55 The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment. 56 The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm, 57 in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment, 58 such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense." 59 The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol, 60 due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. " '[P]istol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and. . . the right to bear such arms • . . cannot be infringed." 6' Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people.62"

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Read the legal writings of the framers.  Read what they wrote.  READ.  They did not mince words.  The 2A is a lot of things, a right to private self defense being one.  READ.

Arms meant for war?  Lol the rifle is the most protected arm.  

 

Industry group defines performance specifications for 8K televisions -  TechSpot Forums

I’m not saying the rifle isn’t and shouldn’t be.   You are the one saying their is no threat from the central state and it can’t happen here.   
 

BTW. Perhaps you should read.  I’m not saying self defense isn’t a valid right.  For many living on the edge of Indian Territory it was a necessity.   The burden is on you to prove the threat from a central government is not a key component.   Something you have failed to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sactowndog said:

I’m not saying the rifle isn’t and shouldn’t be.   You are the one saying their is no threat from the central state and it can’t happen here.   
 

BTW. Perhaps you should read.  I’m not saying self defense isn’t a valid right.  For many living on the edge of Indian Territory it was a necessity.   The burden is on you to prove the threat from a central government is not a key component.   Something you have failed to do. 

 

It does not need to be a key component, A Federal Despot was never mentioned.  Not once.  The Militia was to be a tool of the Federal government, lol.  

And, hypothetically lets say the Fathers feared a tyrannical federal government, that is neither here nor there for the future of the second amendment.  The founders intended the second amendment to secure the rights of citizens to arm their person for self defense.  It does not matter if they ALSO intended for the second amendment to be a security against tyranny.  

Do you follow?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

It does not need to be a key component, A Federal Despot was never mentioned.  Not once.  The Militia was to be a tool of the Federal government, lol.  

And, hypothetically lets say the Fathers feared a tyrannical federal government, that is neither here nor there for the future of the second amendment.  The founders intended the second amendment to secure the rights of citizens to arm their person for self defense.  It does not matter if they ALSO intended for the second amendment to be a security against tyranny.  

Do you follow?

I’ll make a minor point here. I do not believe private self defense was the primary motivation of the 2A. I think they believed a militia system would limit the power of the federal government by reducing the need for a standing army. And the only way to ensure that state militias would be effective is if the right to bear arms was secured.

These were men who thought it a good idea to draw guns over petty disputes though, so I don’t believe they’d have a problem with current interpretation including self defense.

  • Cheers 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

I’ll make a minor point here. I do not believe private self defense was the primary motivation of the 2A. I think they believed a militia system would limit the power of the federal government by reducing the need for a standing army. And the only way to ensure that state militias would be effective is if the right to bear arms was secured.

These were men who thought it a good idea to draw guns over petty disputes though, so I don’t believe they’d have a problem with current interpretation including self defense.

When you look at the legal writings of the times regarding the second amendment and arms, personal self defense was mentioned frequently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

When you look at the legal writings of the times regarding the second amendment and arms, personal self defense was mentioned frequently.

James Irdell writes  "Be not afraid of the Pistols you have sent me. They may be necessary Implements of self Defense tho' I dare say I shall never have Occasion to use them . . . . It is a Satisfaction to have the means of Security at hand, if we are in no danger, as I never expect to be. Confide in my prudence and self regard for a proper use of them, and you need have no Apprehension. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

When you look at the legal writings of the times regarding the second amendment and arms, personal self defense was mentioned frequently.

Yet somehow it never made it into the second amendment.   Textualist indeed:facepalm:Your argument is that the founders expected gun enthusiasts to take a "living document" interpretive view of the words,  I suppose. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Yet somehow it never made it into the second amendment.   Textualist indeed:facepalm:Your argument is that the founders expected gun enthusiasts to take a "living document" interpretive view of the words,  I suppose. 

It actually did!  "Shall not be infringed!".

You should look up what originalism means.  Maybe stop participating in these threads until you have basic laymen knowledge.

"In 1980, Paul Brest wrote an article in the Boston University Law Review, called The Misconceived Quest for Original Understanding, in which he coined the term “originalism.” Brest was not one to waste words, opening the article: “By ‘originalism’ I mean the familiar approach to constitutional adjudication that accords binding authority to the text of the Constitution or the intentions of its adopters.” He continued, “At least since Marbury . . . originalism in one form or another has been a major theme in the American constitutional tradition.”

https://leastdangerousblog.com/2018/07/08/textualism-is-not-strict-constructionism-is-not-originalism/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It actually did!  "Shall not be infringed!".

You should look up what originalism means.  Maybe stop participating in these threads until you have basic laymen knowledge.

"In 1980, Paul Brest wrote an article in the Boston University Law Review, called The Misconceived Quest for Original Understanding, in which he coined the term “originalism.” Brest was not one to waste words, opening the article: “By ‘originalism’ I mean the familiar approach to constitutional adjudication that accords binding authority to the text of the Constitution or the intentions of its adopters.” He continued, “At least since Marbury . . . originalism in one form or another has been a major theme in the American constitutional tradition.”

https://leastdangerousblog.com/2018/07/08/textualism-is-not-strict-constructionism-is-not-originalism/

And I suppose "well regulated militia"  was just flowery language they thrown in there that should be completely ignored.   You know folks in those days couldn't just get to there point... just ignore all that stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Akkula said:

And I suppose "well regulated militia"  was just flowery language they thrown in there that should be completely ignored.   You know folks in those days couldn't just get to there point... just ignore all that stuff. 

Originalism is to, and I quote, understand the doctrine that words are to be given the meaning they had when they were adopted; specif[ically], the canon that a legal text should be interpreted through the historical ascertainment of the meaning that it would have conveyed to a fully informed observer at the time when the text first took effect.  An originalist approach to text means you look at the legal writings and understandings of the framers at the time it was written or until amended or repealed.

Your right, they certainly did not mince words "Shall not be infringed" is about as clear as it gets!  They got right to the point in dozens of legal writings as well!  Stating over and over citizens have a right to own weapons for their defense!

Glad I can help teach you things and shit.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Originalism is to, and I quote, understand the doctrine that words are to be given the meaning they had when they were adopted; specif[ically], the canon that a legal text should be interpreted through the historical ascertainment of the meaning that it would have conveyed to a fully informed observer at the time when the text first took effect.  An originalist approach to text means you look at the legal writings and understandings of the framers at the time it was written or until amended or repealed.

Your right, they certainly did not mince words "Shall not be infringed" is about as clear as it gets!  They got right to the point in dozens of legal writings as well!  Stating over and over citizens have a right to own weapons for their defense!

Glad I can help teach you things and shit.

 

 

So since conjobs speak for the founding fathers would Thomas Jefferson say that the ban on machine guns is unconstitutional or would he say that to regulate AR15s like machine guns you would just need to amend the legislation to add AR15s to that class of weapons regulated under that law? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Akkula said:

So since conjobs speak for the founding fathers would Thomas Jefferson say that the ban on machine guns is unconstitutional or would he say that to regulate AR15s like machine guns you would just need to amend the legislation to add AR15s to that class of weapons regulated under that law? 

Great question. Since you mentioned good ole T.J., Jefferson actually passed hunting legislation that clearly shows "bearing" arms to mean arms which a person can carry.  And no that is the great thing about originalism, we look to the framers words!  What did they write or say at the time?  We don't have to speak for them, they spoke for themselves!  The framers wrote at lengths that the populace should have access to bear similar arms as the standing army.  The semi automatic rifle is the natural descendent of the musket so any ban on them would be completely unconstitutional.   

You are learning so much today Akkula.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Great question. Since you mentioned good ole T.J., Jefferson actually passed hunting legislation that clearly shows "bearing" arms to mean arms which a person can carry.  And no that is the great thing about originalism, we look to the framers words!  What did they write or say at the time?  We don't have to speak for them, they spoke for themselves!  The framers wrote at lengths that the populace should have access to bear similar arms as the standing army.  The semi automatic rifle is the natural descendent of the musket so any band on them would be completely unconstitutional.   

You are learning so much today Akkula.  

And so he would say that the NFA that regulates automatic weapons would be unconstitutional?  Is that his position?  Automatic weapons should be able to be kept by every man without government regulation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Akkula said:

And so he would say that the NFA that regulates automatic weapons would be unconstitutional?  Is that his position?  Automatic weapons should be able to be kept by every man without government regulation?

 

I am positive the framers would agree with that assessment, yes.  Just look at what they wrote and you would agree they would agree.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...