A Majority of people polled want the Supremes to rule based upon what the Constitution means today.

[miketx]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry,
That's for sure. Look at who's President.

President Trump is smart enough to become a multi billionaire, obliterate 16 GOP primary rivals, take on the entire Dem party and liberal media pretty much single handedly and whoop their ass. Come on OldLady is your argument really that a man who could accomplish that is a moron?

Agree! No one can get to be president my being a moron, even bath house.

 

[2aguy]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

Which is what the Founders understood...and why the left hates the Founders.... the Constitution is a wall that blocks left wing extremists and they hate it......and they have been using the education system, the entertainment industry and the news media in an attempt to undermine that wall and to bring it down, so that their temporary whims can be inflicted on whoever they want to destroy or reward....

 

[BluesLegend]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

Which is what the Founders understood...and why the left hates the Founders.... the Constitution is a wall that blocks left wing extremists and they hate it......and they have been using the education system, the entertainment industry and the news media in an attempt to undermine that wall and to bring it down, so that their temporary whims can be inflicted on whoever they want to destroy or reward....

Exactly correct, the left can't muster the votes to amend the Constitution so they try to ignore it, bastardize it, undermine it. The founders had to fight a war with the world's #1 superpower to secure the people's freedom from this type of tyranny, the 2nd isn't based on a theory.

 

[2aguy]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

Which is what the Founders understood...and why the left hates the Founders.... the Constitution is a wall that blocks left wing extremists and they hate it......and they have been using the education system, the entertainment industry and the news media in an attempt to undermine that wall and to bring it down, so that their temporary whims can be inflicted on whoever they want to destroy or reward....

Exactly correct, the left can't muster the votes to amend the Constitution so they try to ignore it, bastardize it, undermine it. The founders had to fight a war with the world's #1 superpower to secure the people's freedom from this type of tyranny, the 2nd isn't based on a theory.

The latest? The lower courts are simply ignoring the Supreme Court......the 4th, 2nd, 9th and 7th circuit court of appeals know that the Supreme Court is hamstrung by the left wing SJWs, so they are ignoring the decisions on gun control handed down by the Supreme Court....

 

[BluesLegend]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

Which is what the Founders understood...and why the left hates the Founders.... the Constitution is a wall that blocks left wing extremists and they hate it......and they have been using the education system, the entertainment industry and the news media in an attempt to undermine that wall and to bring it down, so that their temporary whims can be inflicted on whoever they want to destroy or reward....

Exactly correct, the left can't muster the votes to amend the Constitution so they try to ignore it, bastardize it, undermine it. The founders had to fight a war with the world's #1 superpower to secure the people's freedom from this type of tyranny, the 2nd isn't based on a theory.

The latest? The lower courts are simply ignoring the Supreme Court......the 4th, 2nd, 9th and 7th circuit court of appeals know that the Supreme Court is hamstrung by the left wing SJWs, so they are ignoring the decisions on gun control handed down by the Supreme Court....

Its worse, local and state governments are flat out ignoring the Constitution and passing laws they know are unconstitutional. Why? Because they know it will take years for challenges to these laws to crawl through the courts and be overturned. Even Dem legal scholars are concerned about this lawless behavior. When government just ignores the law and Constitution whenever it feels like, soon the people begin ignoring the law also.

 

[Pop23]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Your opinion is based on the premise of the current. The founders were much smarter than that. They realized that nothing lasts forever.

And before you start the argument that a militia could not defeat the standing army, the founders also lived by a very important standard..........

Better to fight and die a free man, than to live a slave.

 

[miketx]

Compare the oppressive England monarchy to the modern day liberal monarchy. The liberal elite are convinced they know better and the people should just fall in line and do whatever they say. They have corrupted government, the press, and education system. They break the law whenever it gets in their way. They impose crushing taxes without mercy to fund their regime. Anyone who gets out of line they attack with a fury. Human behavior has not changed.

Which is what the Founders understood...and why the left hates the Founders.... the Constitution is a wall that blocks left wing extremists and they hate it......and they have been using the education system, the entertainment industry and the news media in an attempt to undermine that wall and to bring it down, so that their temporary whims can be inflicted on whoever they want to destroy or reward....

Exactly correct, the left can't muster the votes to amend the Constitution so they try to ignore it, bastardize it, undermine it. The founders had to fight a war with the world's #1 superpower to secure the people's freedom from this type of tyranny, the 2nd isn't based on a theory.

The latest? The lower courts are simply ignoring the Supreme Court......the 4th, 2nd, 9th and 7th circuit court of appeals know that the Supreme Court is hamstrung by the left wing SJWs, so they are ignoring the decisions on gun control handed down by the Supreme Court....

Its worse, local and state governments are flat out ignoring the Constitution and passing laws they know are unconstitutional. Why? Because they know it will take years for challenges to these laws to crawl through the courts and be overturned. Even Dem legal scholars are concerned about this lawless behavior. When government just ignores the law and Constitution whenever it feels like, soon the people begin ignoring the law also.

You got that right! People are doing all kinds of stupid crap because they think they can get away with it because the gov does. They must have been absent the day "do as I say, not as I do" was taught.

 

[miketx]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

Your opinion is based on the premise of the current. The founders were much smarter than that. They realized that nothing lasts forever.

And before you start the argument that a militia could not defeat the standing army, the founders also lived by a very important standard..........

Better to fight and die a free man, than to live a slave.

Liberals like to trot out the "can't defeat a standing army" stuff completely ignoring all the times it has been done.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

Wrong.....you do not want the government to have the ability to set up what they can do to you....that leads to the mass graves.....which is why the Constitution is based on limiting the government and defining the Rights of the individual.

Um, perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I was not writing in favor of enhanced Government power. I wrote that all the exceptions are making the negative rights, the phrase used by President Obama, weaker.

Using Negative Rights in context, it means the limits of what the Government can do. By making those limits weaker, we all suffer. All those exceptions that we have. Police can search without a warrant if they have probable cause. They can search without a warrant for any number of reasons, most of which were layered on top of the exceptions before. It is the slippery slope in practice.

Take the use of deadly force by cops. In the 1970’s, that ability was limited. The police officer had to see a gun. Not something, it had to be a gun. If there was no gun, the shooting was unjustified. Some departments had it as a rule that the cops could shoot second, in other words, return fire, but not initiate the shoot out. Then in the 1980’s, we saw kids getting killed with toy guns. The slippery slope is beginning. We decided that if the cops believed it was a gun, that was all it took. We applied it to other things. If a bank robber just handed over a note that said give me the money in the cash drawer, but did not show a weapon the argument was that it was not an armed robbery.

We decided if the person believed the individual was armed, that was enough for the armed robbery charge. If the cop believed the toy was real, it was enough. Then it became something that could be mistaken for a gun, the slippery slope is getting steeper.

Now, it is a matter of quick draw contests, and if the baddie isn’t actually armed, tough shit. He could have been, he might have been, it was possible. If the guy was naked, well then he was on drugs, or crazy, or something else. We have reached the bottom of the slippery slope, the exceptions to the rule, became the new rule. The exceptions to the rule of the baddie must have a gun, became an unsustainable situation.

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit Government, not give them all power. That is all Governments. From a collection of neighbors who gather on the third thursday of the month for a council meeting and the owner of the local Gas Station puts on his Mayor hat to the collection of idiots we have in Congress.

None of them are supposed to be able to do what they are doing. Those limits were eroded by exceptions, and we are all suffering because of it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

I don't buy the "majority" claim, but never let it be said there is a shortage of uneducated morons among the current American citizenry, and however many illegal "guests" responded to that poll.

I asked a group of 10 people what the 10th amendment said....none of them knew.

SCARY

 

[August West]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

 

[DJT for Life]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

Have you ever heard of the Inactive Reserve?

You'll discover that "every able-bodied man" is still alive and well. There
just hasn't been a need to use it. (Although it was used to a minor extent
during the first Gulf War (Desert Storm)

 

[August West]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

The writings are not the Constitution and they mean nothing in the year 2018. I know about the militias and how worthless they were. They butchered Indian women and children and ran from Indian warriors which is one of the reasons we turned to a real army.Gnadenhutten massacre

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

Have you ever heard of the Inactive Reserve?

You'll discover that "every able-bodied man" is still alive and well. There
just hasn't been a need to use it. (Although it was used to a minor extent
during the first Gulf War (Desert Storm)

Yes I’ve heard of it. No it isn’t the same. Not by a long shot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So what, Savannah Man?

Americans want SCOTUS to rule on what the Constitution means to us today, not what it meant 229 years ago.

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

The writings are not the Constitution and they mean nothing in the year 2018. I know about the militias and how worthless they were. They butchered Indian women and children and ran from Indian warriors which is one of the reasons we turned to a real army.Gnadenhutten massacre

There are many things we’ve done wrong in our history. We should learn from them, and then make sure we avoid repeating the wrongs. It is one of the things that annoys me when I hear of a story that has clear parallels to historic errors. I’ve even written about how we tend to learn the wrong lesson and how it screws up our efforts to minimize a repeat.

Now, the writings of the era describe principles. Principles that at the time were radical. By using those principles, we can continue to improve, and grow, and be guided as to what is right for us. By ignoring those principles we can only demolish what is, and what could be. The quotes and statements from the past not just from the founders, but from radical thinkers through history are our guide. We must learn them, and understand them in context, in order to be guided to a better future.

The problem with history is that we know what happens. We know how the story ends. We look and point and scream you idiots, can’t you see what happens if you do this? We look at the First World War and the demand for reparations from Germany, and we know that it contributes to the Great Depression. We look at the horrors we have committed in history, the evils we have done and we should learn from them.

Before we can learn, we must understand them. Not from our current point of view, but from the point of view of those involved.

Look at World War II. The Allies committed a great number of atrocities, things that we consider War Crimes today. Firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, and many other cities as one of a long list of atrocities. Do you think that the leaders of the era woke up one day and decided to barbecue Tokyo? It wasn’t a decision made that morning, it was the end of a long series of decisions. One led to the other, each justification was used to justify the next one. The Slippery Slope I mentioned in another response.

Now, the simple thing to do is to stand around and scream that we were awful and we did terrible things. But to truly understand it, you have to understand how we got to that point, what led to it?

Precision Bombing was simply put, not possible. We learned that the hard way. We learned that perhaps ten percent of the bombs dropped would land within five miles of the target, never mind hitting the target. We believed that if we could make the people suffer, they would demand peace. But it hadn’t ever worked in history. But the argument went, we didn’t have this weapon, or that tactic, or this tool.

We learned. We learned and we developed the technology to try and minimize civilian casualties. The collateral damage that we dismissed before. We developed the tactics, and techniques, to go with that technology.

We no longer firebomb a city to destroy the infrastructure required to run the factories. We don’t bomb dams to flood the valley and drown the people, all in an effort to disrupt the hydroelectric power to factories. We don’t bomb a city hoping that one of the bombs we flung in their general direction might hit the factory. We use precision munitions, which are still not kisses on the cheek, but we do it because we don’t want to repeat those actions of history.

I can’t go back in time and stop the horrible things that happened. I can only try and learn from those events. I can only hope that if we learn enough history, we might not repeat it. I can hope that we can understand what the historical figures were really trying to do, even if, especially if, it did not turn out the way they hoped. That is the only way we can prevent such things from happening again.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So what, Savannah Man?

Americans want SCOTUS to rule on what the Constitution means to us today, not what it meant 229 years ago.

It means what it means shit-for-brains.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There is some good news, and some bad news in that by the way. First the link. Pew: Majority now says SCOTUS should base rulings on what Constitution means "in current times," not originally

For years now people like myself have been pointing out that the asinine arguments of the anti-gunners that the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard, what they see as the “Militia” is wrong. We have been pointing out with links, and articles, that the Militia at the time the Constitution was Ratified, was every single person. Ok, actually it was every able bodied free man. But that is because Women and Slaves were not considered for the right. A belief fixed by Amendments later on.

Well the good news is that people are obviously learning. The bad news, they still don’t want those rules to apply to Supreme Court Decisions. Instead, they want the Constitution viewed by what the words mean TODAY.

This means that the education is working. Those of us who keep trying to educate our fellow citizens should feel gratified that our efforts are showing results. Now, if we could only explain to them that the words used were an effort to capture an ideal, a principle intended to guide us, then we would be better off.

President Obama understood much of this. He said that the Constitution was a series of negative rights. It said what the States, the Government could not do to you, but did not say what the Government can do for you.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution

He was right. The Consititution sets out things that may never be taken from someone, things that they may never endure at the hands of their Government. The Government may not abridge your Freedom of Speech, it may not prevent you form worshipping in your own way. Everything in there are things it can’t do.

The Constitution was never intended to limit the citizenry, but to limit the power of the Government. Those are the Negative Rights that Obama talked about. The Government can’t just walk in and search your home, and go through your stuff on a whim. It must have a Warrant.

Every time the Supreme Court rules that there are exceptions, those negative rights get weaker. Those exceptions should be in the most extreme circumstances, never the standard by which we remove even more of your rights.

I feel good that people are learning the truth about the history of the Constitution. Now it is time to start explaining why the Constitution is set up the way it is. If you want a more modern reading of a right, then we have a process for that. It is called an Amendment. Those are very hard to get because they should be. It should be hard to place restrictions on the people. It should be hard to take away their rights. It should be damned near impossible to remove a right from an individual in this nation.

More people are learning what, now it is time to teach them why.

The Progressive do this in "baby steps" by passing a small change in a law towards their goal and just weaken it a little. Later they return to weaken the law a little bit more. Next the law is not really enforceable. Hence the 2nd Adm to be weakened a little by what ever and make it not possible to claim. You lose they win.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The problem is that the context has changed, and the actual words do not apply. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state. We have a secure free state, guaranteed by a permanent standing army. This something the Founding Father never anticipated.

Therefore, it would not be entirely specious for the USSC to declare the entire Second Amendment void, because it no longer applies.

Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon.

The Founders could envision a standing army. The Founding Fathers prohibited a Standing Army. They understood that such a force had been used to subjugate the populations before, and made efforts to prevent that from happening in the future. This is where the principles that are supposed to guide us come in.

In the time of the Founders, a few weeks could allow an individual who was untrained, or barely trained, to be of sufficient skill to be a soldier. Remember in those days fighting in an army meant marching right at the enemy with bayonets fixed to muskets. Today, it is understood that it takes two years before a soldier is sufficiently trained and experienced. Unless all you want are armies of cannon fodder, which we tend to frown upon.

The Principles are what matter. The reasons behind the Amendment, which was a statement of principle. It used terms that were widely understood, and in use, at the time. Common terms. It would be as if I wrote it during the 1980’s. It would have used Dude, Bogus, and Fucked up. Terms that today, are pretty much as archaic as the ones used. Language changes over time. To understand the intent, you have to read, study, and think so you can understand the language of the era, and what the people were trying to say.

It is why the Fourth Amendment applies to email, and phone calls. Because the intent of secure in their person and papers was not just whatever notes they had tucked in a drawer, but all versions of the written word, and communications.

The term Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time, Stocks and floggings were if not common, certainly not unheard of. Public Hangings were the norm for serious crimes like Murder.

Yet, today we consider those things to be Cruel and Unsual. The intent behind that was not to insist that the old punishments were the standard for all the time to come. The intent was that things which were outrageous would be prohibited. What those things were, well that was left up to the people to decide.

There is some room for evolution, interpretation. But that interpretation must be within the principles of the Founders. You can’t argue that emails don’t apply when we are discussing the Fourth Amendment, because the Founders never imagined electronic communication. Yet, you make the same argument about rights you wish we did not have. You have to have them all or you will have none.

If the founders wanted us to have guns to shoot our elected officials the amendment would say that. It doesn`t. How do you know what the founders could envision? You don`t.

Sure we do. We have far more to read than the Constitution. Start with the Federalist Papers. It is long, but a good view inside the minds of the people who started all this.

Secondly, we can read the laws they passed, including the Militia acts. Those identified the Militia as every able bodied free man. Today, thanks to our process of Amendments, able bodied free men mean men, and women, of all colors and creeds.

So if the Militia of the era was every able bodied free man, literally everyone, then why do you think that the founders never imagined what we have today?

Oh, and if you are wondering what Well Regulated means, that’s covered too. You see, the Governors of the new States had the authority to appoint Officers. That is to say they got a piece of paper that said they were commissioned to be an officer of this rank. Those Officers appointed by the Goverors, were the ones who commanded the Militia when it was raised. The other half of that was the fact that when activated, Military Discipline was provided for. The Militia was expected to obey orders, and follow the rules of war.

The Draft of the era was one of the Officers would ride into the town, and announce that the militia was being called up, and the town of two hundred able bodied men, would provide twenty bodies. If twenty men volunteered then no one was “drafted”.

All of this is known from the writings of the era. If you don’t know it, it is not because the Founders did not tell us, it is because you have not tried to learn it. Judging what someone intended while wallowing in ignorance is not the best way to come to an accurate conclusion. You might find one, but it would be chance not intent.

The writings are not the Constitution and they mean nothing in the year 2018. I know about the militias and how worthless they were. They butchered Indian women and children and ran from Indian warriors which is one of the reasons we turned to a real army.Gnadenhutten massacre

There are many things we’ve done wrong in our history. We should learn from them, and then make sure we avoid repeating the wrongs. It is one of the things that annoys me when I hear of a story that has clear parallels to historic errors. I’ve even written about how we tend to learn the wrong lesson and how it screws up our efforts to minimize a repeat.

Now, the writings of the era describe principles. Principles that at the time were radical. By using those principles, we can continue to improve, and grow, and be guided as to what is right for us. By ignoring those principles we can only demolish what is, and what could be. The quotes and statements from the past not just from the founders, but from radical thinkers through history are our guide. We must learn them, and understand them in context, in order to be guided to a better future.

The problem with history is that we know what happens. We know how the story ends. We look and point and scream you idiots, can’t you see what happens if you do this? We look at the First World War and the demand for reparations from Germany, and we know that it contributes to the Great Depression. We look at the horrors we have committed in history, the evils we have done and we should learn from them.

Before we can learn, we must understand them. Not from our current point of view, but from the point of view of those involved.

Look at World War II. The Allies committed a great number of atrocities, things that we consider War Crimes today. Firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, and many other cities as one of a long list of atrocities. Do you think that the leaders of the era woke up one day and decided to barbecue Tokyo? It wasn’t a decision made that morning, it was the end of a long series of decisions. One led to the other, each justification was used to justify the next one. The Slippery Slope I mentioned in another response.

Now, the simple thing to do is to stand around and scream that we were awful and we did terrible things. But to truly understand it, you have to understand how we got to that point, what led to it?

Precision Bombing was simply put, not possible. We learned that the hard way. We learned that perhaps ten percent of the bombs dropped would land within five miles of the target, never mind hitting the target. We believed that if we could make the people suffer, they would demand peace. But it hadn’t ever worked in history. But the argument went, we didn’t have this weapon, or that tactic, or this tool.

We learned. We learned and we developed the technology to try and minimize civilian casualties. The collateral damage that we dismissed before. We developed the tactics, and techniques, to go with that technology.

We no longer firebomb a city to destroy the infrastructure required to run the factories. We don’t bomb dams to flood the valley and drown the people, all in an effort to disrupt the hydroelectric power to factories. We don’t bomb a city hoping that one of the bombs we flung in their general direction might hit the factory. We use precision munitions, which are still not kisses on the cheek, but we do it because we don’t want to repeat those actions of history.

I can’t go back in time and stop the horrible things that happened. I can only try and learn from those events. I can only hope that if we learn enough history, we might not repeat it. I can hope that we can understand what the historical figures were really trying to do, even if, especially if, it did not turn out the way they hoped. That is the only way we can prevent such things from happening again.

History does repeat it's self. This is really true if you don't teach it in school the little ones don't hear about the horror of WWII or anyother war it will be repeated. False history is taught in most countries. Russia is a good example in they teach that the State of Alaska was rented to the USA for 99 years and will be returned to the USSR or Russia at that time. This was told to me by a Russian student who was attending school at MTSU (Middle Tenn State University)