What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Biden says “No Amendment to the Constitution is absolute”

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
4,447
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,529
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Marxist Danny uses 'Rules For Radicals' to make up his own definitions. Thanks for the link....CNN no less :omg:
the link was before president Trump

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
70,622
Reaction score
4,447
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.
what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO
if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.
Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.
well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.
well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?
Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,529
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
81,092
Reaction score
11,529
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.
what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO
if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.
Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.
well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.
well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?
Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.
it's your made up words what document did you get it from Saul alinsky rules for radicals?
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
2,821
Reaction score
1,288
Points
178
Well, this could get interesting...


View attachment 478215
He's right....thus the 21st eliminating the 18th. Know your history.
But more than that, all of the amendments are subject to regulation and the laws passed to enforce them
how does a forced state controlled religion sound to you? with a mandatory contribution of 20% of your income to that religion? not including your income tax?
1624496660679.png
 

Mr. Friscus

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
503
Reaction score
838
Points
498
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,370
Reaction score
1,253
Points
893
Location
Florida
When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.
Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?
Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,370
Reaction score
1,253
Points
893
Location
Florida
You would think after all of these years being coddled in public service, saying racist things about black people, and sexually harrassing women, that Joe Biden would have gotten around to reading the Constitution. Obviously he has not. By our nation's design, The Bill of Rights is untouchable. We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing. What an idiot.
No they aren't, who do you think wrote them?
The US government.

Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life.

So, why don't American people have the same "rights" when you go to Mexico, Columbia, China, Cuba, Australia or Germany.

Make sure you carry the "bill of rights" with you.

They will be amused, to say the least.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,370
Reaction score
1,253
Points
893
Location
Florida
While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.
If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?
27, the last one? May 5 1992.

Next one will pass by at least 2099.......................I'm sure of it.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
42,421
Reaction score
13,750
Points
2,250
well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Marxist Danny uses 'Rules For Radicals' to make up his own definitions. Thanks for the link....CNN no less :omg:
Clueless and Causeless right-wingers make the Best, Russian tools.
Old Joe is obviously senile, but the point of this thread is meaningless. The oligarchy and the politicians they control pay no attention to the constitution, unless it benefits themselves to do so. Otherwise it’s ignored and has been for decades.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
2,370
Reaction score
1,253
Points
893
Location
Florida
While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.
If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.
Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.
dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th
NO, dumbshit
While true its a pretty vague general statement. While no Amendment is absolute there is very little he can do on his own. Maybe nothing.
all amendments are protected rights therefore they are absolute

Who told you that?

The government (politicians) wrote the contents of the constitution, they can change them, with enough support, anytime they wish.
sure there is an amendment process try it and see how that works.
actually the states wrote the content of the Constitution and processed it through the amendment process.
Correct, until everyone has voted and the amendment is passed, ratified or repealed.
If you think it's so simple how many amendments have been amended?

Never said simple especially in this day and age, maybe a half dozen were amended, IDK.
Nope try again.
1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
The 1st amendment repealed the 18th?
The 18th banned alcohol production and sales.
dumbass you can't comprehend what you read
I said 1 amendment has been repealed the 18th
not the 1st amendment repealed the 18th
Thanks for clearing that up AND you are right.

The 18th Amendment banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States, also known as Prohibition, is the only Constitutional amendment has been repealed in U.S. history. Congress ratified the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
2,537
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
We hold these truths to be self-evident.. as in pre-existing
And how can anyone who does not really, really hate America disagree with that?
Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.
Lots of 6-year-old kids take martial arts classes for self-defense, discipline, to build confidence, etc.

Kids do need to learn self-defense, when it's justified to use force, when it's not, what kind of force is necessary and appropriate to defend themselves against "the usual" beatings by playground bullies accompanied by "the usual" harsh disciplinary measures taken by the school district against the victims of aggressive name-calling bullies.
 

Cecilie1200

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
52,455
Reaction score
14,186
Points
2,180
Location
Phoenix, AZ
When the second amendment says there can be no federal infringement on the right to bear arms, then that can and is absolute.
Meaning that only state and local laws can restrict weapons, not any federal legislation.
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
No, it isn't.
Look up the National Firearms Act of 1934.

That makes no sense because the National Firearms Act of 1934 obviously is illegal.
All federal weapons legislation are clearly illegal.
Look at the Miller case of 1938 that tried to show the law was illegal.
The courts obviously were wrong in their ruling.
They claimed that a short barrel shotgun had no military purpose, so then was not protected.
That is obviously wrong for 2 reasons.
One is that short barrel shotguns always had an important military use, as they were known as coachguns, due to their use in protecting stage coaches from attack, and short barrel shot guns were common in all wars, from the WWI trench shotgun, to the Revolutionary war blunderbuss.
The other is that the absolute restriction of the 2nd amendment on any and all federal legislation is not supposed to be limited to only weapons of military use. If something is useful for hunting or defense only, it still is supposed to be protected from federal legislation.
Bringing up the 1934 National Firearms Act does not at all help your case of justifying federal gun laws, but instead once again shows how irrational and draconian all federal gun laws are.
Obviously?
Really ?
"Illegal" going on for 87 years?
The rest of your BS is just that.
Your opinion just shows how irrational the RW has become.

What, you thought that doing a bad thing for a long time magically made it not-bad?
Exactly, even 6 year old's entering grade school, should be issued a tommy gun, in case of bully's and the teacher start with the "socialism", crap.

Yes, that bit of rambling, incoherent nonsense is exactly what I was saying . . . if you're smoking crack.
 

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
8,210
Reaction score
2,537
Points
210
Location
alaska, usa
And the one reason they do list is a pretty good one, that still means there should never be any federal firearms laws.
This much is true. The federal government has absolutely no business regulating or restricting what kinds of weapons we the people are allowed to possess in our homes and carry on our persons.
Each state should be setting their own weapons laws. AL should differ greatly from NY.
Here we have to cut the hands off thieves, and it is precisely those state and local cops whose authority to meddle in gun rights must be forever revoked.
Amendment XIV, §1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,660
Reaction score
3,649
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
The Second Amendment is absolute: "shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation or weakening.
The second amendment is cut and dry and to the point
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.
what does shall not be infringed mean to you?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read that awkwardly written 2nd Amendment and always stop at the phrase "well regulated".
That seems to supersede the 'not be infringed" part.

IMHO
if you read it and understood it you would know well regulated does not mean when the second amendment was written what it means today.
Yes, it does. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of express law.
well regulated in the 18th century was
in working order as to be expected
old people use to say their body was well regulated
No, it doesn't. Right-Wingers simply appeal to ignorance of the law yet allege to be against illegals.
well regulated in the 18th century does not mean to regulate
Appeals to Ignorance are considered fallacies. Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
what in the fuck is wellness of regulation?
Not bright enough to figure it out? Typical of the Right-Wing.

Wellness of regulation does not at all imply restrictions but the opposite, to prevent any and all restrictions.
Well regulated means fully functional and free flowing, such as in regular digestion or regular interstate commerce.

The obvious intent of the 2nd amendment was to deny any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, in any way.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
12,660
Reaction score
3,649
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
And the one reason they do list is a pretty good one, that still means there should never be any federal firearms laws.
This much is true. The federal government has absolutely no business regulating or restricting what kinds of weapons we the people are allowed to possess in our homes and carry on our persons.
Each state should be setting their own weapons laws. AL should differ greatly from NY.
Here we have to cut the hands off thieves, and it is precisely those state and local cops whose authority to meddle in gun rights must be forever revoked.
Amendment XIV, §1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Someone has to make some firearm laws.
For example, you don't want people to make defective firearms that blowup when you try to use them, or for someone to sell them to 10 year olds. If states were to do a firearm registry, that would not bother me either, since that could be useful for them to know how many additional firearms they should have on hand in their armory, in case of emergency.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
44,578
Reaction score
24,998
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Joe Dufus stole the election, doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights and he wants to nuke Americans that don't agree with the filthy Democrat Party's agenda of making the US a Socialist shithole.

Why isn't the sonofabitch being impeached?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top