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

[Norman]

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.

So basically, ignore the law...

No wonder, many also feel that illegals are heroes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?

What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?

Why did you fail to offer the evidence?

Have you taken ConLaw?

Have you read and understood Heller:

to wit, this paragraph:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26​

 

[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.

It means what it means shit-for-brains.

And time and events and technology does not change the enviornment culturally, socially, economically, politically, etc? And an ad hom only reflects the type of person giving it.

So, listen up: what George Mason thought then has almost no meaning now.

 

[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.

Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?

What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?

Why did you fail to offer the evidence?

Have you taken ConLaw?

Have you read and understood Heller:

to wit, this paragraph:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26​

Yes, and I’ve often been surprised by Blackstone being quoted so often. Blackstone was not speaking of the American Rights, which by our Declaration of Independance we believe are derived from our creator, or if you prefer, natural rights to all living creatures. In England, all rights are granted by the King. Blackstone in his writings was describing the rights of English Citizens. The last time I checked, we weren’t English.

Freedom of Speech is more easily curtailed under British Law, as one example. The only ones under English Law of the Blackstone Era who had freedom of speech was Parliment. That would be as if only our Elected Representatives had the Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press is similarly more easily curtailed, and don’t even get started on Freedom of Religion in Britain of the era of Blackstone. You were free to belong to the Church of England. Or else.

So using Blackstone’s writings to justify the limiting of rights of Americans is sort of silly IMO. Granted, we should read his words, but again, keeping them in context of what he was talking about, and trying to do. Not taking them as Gospel, but understanding them as what was at the time, a good effort to describe the rights of Englishmen.

I would sound like an ignorant ass if I used quotes from Apartide South Africa to justify some ideals of how the Races should be managed. If such words were the foundation of one of our Constitutional Rights, we would be outraged and demand an end to whatever the damned thing was. But somehow Blackstone’s comments on the rights of Englishmen, under English law, are sacred as they apply to American Rights.

I’ve read Heller, and I disagree with it. The same way I disagree with Kelo. Eminent Domain was never intended to be able to take private property to give it to another private entity under the lame assed excuse that you could get more taxes from Condos than you could from single family houses. It was intended to be used for public works. Things like schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, Government buildings. Roads, and right of ways for transport. Fine. I’m cool with those. I believe that the Founders saw that there were times when the General Welfare would overshadow the right to private property. Again, those were supposed to be the exceptions, not the rule.

In Kelo, we got the read that there there were no limits to the power of Eminent Domain. So let me give you a what if. What if a racist city council wanted to sieze the property of Blacks and Hispanics to displace them, and give the property to a developer who would create a gated community which would exclude minorities from it? Blackstone would argue that so long as the people having their property seized were compensated it was fine and dandy. Under Kelo, the racist city council could do it. Their excuse would be more tax income to the city. It was wrong in Kelo, and it would be wrong in every single instance.

 

[SavannahMann]

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)

Of course it does. The French were defeated in Vietnam. So we went in thinking our technology, and our superior forces and awesome Generals would win.

Afghanistan. Everyone has been driven out of Afghanistan in history. What is funny is this. The BBC has updated the Sherlock Holmes stories to the modern era. What is really funny is that the British were in Afghanistan when the books were first written, and now, more than a century later, they were back. They didn’t have to change one bit of the opening scenes of the first story.

Sherlock could look at Doctor Watson, and say he was tanned and had a bit of a limp that was obviously from his service in Afghanistan.

But we’re there, and the same damned things are happening, again, and again we are pretending that this time it will be different. This time, we’ll make sure we do it smarter, with better tactics and technology.

The Nazi’s didn’t learn from Napoleon. Both armies suffered similar fates when General Winter arrived. The American’s in the same Second World War refused to learn from World War One, or the earlier parts of the Second War. Admiral King refused to implement a Convoy System, and allowed more than four thousand people to die at the hands of the U Boats off the American Coast. His pride, and determination to fight the war in the “American” way cost untold tens of millions in lost cargo, another tens of millions in ships, and thousands of lives with the ships. God alone knows how many dead because supplies didn’t reach them in sufficient quality and quantity to make any difference.

When King was finally ordered to implement the convoy system, the losses dropped right off. Someone learned, but it wasn’t King who resented it through the rest of the war.

Time and again, we can see the same lessons ignored, all because we think we are smarter than those idiots who came before and screwed it up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?

What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?

Why did you fail to offer the evidence?

Have you taken ConLaw?

Have you read and understood Heller:

to wit, this paragraph:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26​

Yes, and I’ve often been surprised by Blackstone being quoted so often. Blackstone was not speaking of the American Rights, which by our Declaration of Independance we believe are derived from our creator, or if you prefer, natural rights to all living creatures. In England, all rights are granted by the King. Blackstone in his writings was describing the rights of English Citizens. The last time I checked, we weren’t English.

Freedom of Speech is more easily curtailed under British Law, as one example. The only ones under English Law of the Blackstone Era who had freedom of speech was Parliment. That would be as if only our Elected Representatives had the Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press is similarly more easily curtailed, and don’t even get started on Freedom of Religion in Britain of the era of Blackstone. You were free to belong to the Church of England. Or else.

So using Blackstone’s writings to justify the limiting of rights of Americans is sort of silly IMO. Granted, we should read his words, but again, keeping them in context of what he was talking about, and trying to do. Not taking them as Gospel, but understanding them as what was at the time, a good effort to describe the rights of Englishmen.

I would sound like an ignorant ass if I used quotes from Apartide South Africa to justify some ideals of how the Races should be managed. If such words were the foundation of one of our Constitutional Rights, we would be outraged and demand an end to whatever the damned thing was. But somehow Blackstone’s comments on the rights of Englishmen, under English law, are sacred as they apply to American Rights.

I’ve read Heller, and I disagree with it. The same way I disagree with Kelo. Eminent Domain was never intended to be able to take private property to give it to another private entity under the lame assed excuse that you could get more taxes from Condos than you could from single family houses. It was intended to be used for public works. Things like schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, Government buildings. Roads, and right of ways for transport. Fine. I’m cool with those. I believe that the Founders saw that there were times when the General Welfare would overshadow the right to private property. Again, those were supposed to be the exceptions, not the rule.

In Kelo, we got the read that there there were no limits to the power of Eminent Domain. So let me give you a what if. What if a racist city council wanted to sieze the property of Blacks and Hispanics to displace them, and give the property to a developer who would create a gated community which would exclude minorities from it? Blackstone would argue that so long as the people having their property seized were compensated it was fine and dandy. Under Kelo, the racist city council could do it. Their excuse would be more tax income to the city. It was wrong in Kelo, and it would be wrong in every single instance.

You may disagree with Scalia's reasoning, and even his audacity - as well as every justice of the USSC since Marshall - to make claim that every decision made under Marbury v. Madison is a step beyond the powers in Art. III.

However, these are the laws of the land, as the Roberts Court, in a vote to on CU V. FEC, made clear along with 5 of the 9 justices.

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

BTW, the issue at hand is about Originalism, and stare decisis was a principle of the Common Law, well in effect long before the Constitution of the US was ever thought about.

 

[Rosy]

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.

Neither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written

 

[Pop23]

So what, Savannah Man?

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

SCOTUS can’t as it’s meaning then and now are the same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Better write SCOTUS, or Stare decisis overrules Originalism. The Constitutional text continues to evolve, as it has from the first day. That is not going to stop to please those who believe in Originalism.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

It would be an act of extreme lawlessness and corruption for the Supreme Court, or any other court, to declare the Second Amendment void. The courts simply do not have that authority.

If, as a nation, we are to decide that the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, is outdated, then the only legitimate remedy is via the Amendment process as defined within the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will not declare the 2dA invalid, Bob. It will take it apart bit by bit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Neither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written

Not quite true. Since it was written, the Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

SCOTUS will not declare the 2dA invalid, Bob. It will take it apart bit by bit.

Whether it is done all at once, in a single stroke, or bit-by-bit, it is still the same lawlessness, and the same corruption.

 

[Meathead]

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.

A vast majority of the people have no fucking idea of what they're opining when it comes to the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Neither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written

LOL ^^^

First example, Every Amendment to COTUS since its Ratification on 17 Sept. 1787.

 

[Pop23]

SCOTUS will not declare the 2dA invalid, Bob. It will take it apart bit by bit.

Doubt they will even touch it.

 

[Pop23]

Neither the Constitution or it's meaning has changed one bit since it was written

Not quite true. Since it was written, the Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times.

Not by SCOTUS.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

We no long use quill, parchment and guys on horseback to deliver letters does that mean the 1st Amendment is void ?

 

[imawhosure]

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.

That is correct, and that shows why YOU LEFTISTS are incompetent!

Why is that?

Because of this-----------> We put up Trump, who knew NOTHING, or so we were told. We should have put up Cruz, or Bush, or anybody else, correct!

And you put up Hilly; oh yes, the mighty Hilly.

And so, America had to decide between what was seen as 2 crooked, incompetent, arrogant, goofs for President. America, and fully 15% of Democrats, decided that Hillary was WORSE than Donald Trump!

CONCLUSION--------> We did NOT put an incompetent person in the Whitehouse, YOU did by pushing a MORE incompetent person to run against him, leaving America little choice.

We said---------> cut off your arm and vote for this person.

You said--------> Cut off both arms and legs and vote for this person.

America picked the correct choice, but never would have taken that choice, unless YOU people hadn't put up something far worse!

It is on YOU!

And, oh by the way---------> it came out in the end, he is far-far better than we ever thought he could be-) So, we thank you very much, since now it is proven, he was better than any of the candidates you had on the stage, lololol!

 

[2aguy]

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.

Do you know why the Federalist Papers were established?

What "writings of the era" have you used to make the statement about ignorance?

Why did you fail to offer the evidence?

Have you taken ConLaw?

Have you read and understood Heller:

to wit, this paragraph:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26​

Sorry....Scalia went on to say that you are wrong...and to single out the AR-15 rifle as an exact weapon that is covered by the 2nd Amendment...you don't know what you are talking about.....or understand what Scalia was saying in Heller, he did not say that you get to ban every single gun you want as long as you leave us one, single shot .22 pistol....

Here is Scalia explaining to you and the other anti gunners how you are wrong about Heller, and the semi automatic rifle...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

II

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment “guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767– 769.


We excluded from protection only “those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government— the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Id., at 634 (emphasis deleted).


Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by “the political process and scholarly debate.” Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that “since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarifthe entire field.” 554 U. S., at 635.


We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.” Id., at 634–635.


Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms “were common at the time of ratification” in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410.

But we said in Heller that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since “states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.” Ibid.

But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627–629.

Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected.


We explained that “Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. II