Dobbs & Bruen – the crudeness of the decisions is its own message

The point of the thread isn’t to rehash Dobbs and Bruen – or Roe and Heller, for that matter.

Indeed, I agree with the ruling in Bruen.

The point of the thread is to illustrate the hypocrisy of conservatives, the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of conservatives, and how their blind partisanism and subjective adherence to a wrongheaded conservative agenda results in flawed, inconsistent judicial dogma.
 
Why should they have, everyone knew what the 2nd Amendment meant at the time, no clarity needed.

So did the Supreme court know what it meant, for 200 plus years of rulings by them....until Scalia's infamous ruling....
Yes, everyone knew that CITIZENS were allowed to bear arms at that time and for all time.
 
They were mostly Libertarians.

Nowadays Libertarians have mixed views about abortion. Some say "my body, my choice". Others say the right of the child to live is greater than the right of the mother to be inconvenienced with the child.

Very little is in the historical record about their views on abortion. Since in those days a lot of children died at an early age they probably looked at each birth as a good thing and would have opposed wantonly killing a child. Also, most of them were devout Christians.
Are you fucking retarded? They werent god damn libertarians and they sure as fuck didnt support killing babies. Where do you retards come up with these wacky ideas? :cuckoo:
 
Are you fucking retarded? They werent god damn libertarians and they sure as fuck didnt support killing babies. Where do you retards come up with these wacky ideas? :cuckoo:

In Jamestown they ate a young girl of around 14. Dumped her remains in a trash cellar.
 
In Jamestown they ate a young girl of around 14. Dumped her remains in a trash cellar.
In Jamestown there was cannibalism because everybody was starving to death. 2/3rds of the colony perished.

They weren't our "Founding Fathers" by the way.
 
True.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but they’re there because the Supreme Court says that they’re there – just as the right to privacy is in the Constitution, because the Supreme Court says it is there.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.
i agree you have a right to privacy

but that doesn’t mean you get to do what ever you want…i can’t murder someone in my house and say murder stats are illegal cause i had a right to privacy in my home, i can’t use meth, etc Govt can regulate all those things, just like medical procedures
 
In Jamestown there was cannibalism because everybody was starving to death. 2/3rds of the colony perished.

They weren't our "Founding Fathers" by the way.

People do and support things one wouldn't expect them to.
 
i agree you have a right to privacy

but that doesn’t mean you get to do what ever you want…i can’t murder someone in my house and say murder stats are illegal cause i had a right to privacy in my home, i can’t use meth, etc Govt can regulate all those things, just like medical procedures

That's the issue. Some times rights conflict. I understand both sides making their arguments and its far more involved than most want to make it out to be.
 
In Jamestown they ate a young girl of around 14. Dumped her remains in a trash cellar.
The founding fathers ate a girl? What in the fuck are you babbling about? Do you even understand this conversation? :cuckoo:
 
The people,

All able White men from 17 to 45 were under a State govt draft, and required under the law to buy and own a gun, and know how to use it, for when and if the State govt called you up and drafted you in to their Militia.

Able men were required to have a gun, for the collective self defense of the State, when and if a Militia was needed, and they were drafted by the State.


Originalism.

The 2nd amendment was never about an individual's right to own a gun for his own self defense, it was about the Militia, and able men being prepared to serve with their own arms, when drafted.

We didn't have a standing army, it was unconstitutional. When necessary, for our defense, State Militias were called upon.



The militia was made up of the PEOPLE. No people, no militia.


DURRRRRR
 
Yes, everyone knew that CITIZENS were allowed to bear arms at that time and for all time.
Of course they were, we had few laws and no law enforcement or courts nationwide at the time....or very few.

And nothing in the constitution that says guns can or cannot be restricted at the personal individual level...either. They simply can not be restricted by the federal government when involved with State Militias, of which certain able state individuals were mandated to participate and be armed, when called up for the State draft.

But also, imo, the right to keep oneself, ones family and ones papers and property safe, we have an unspelled out, implicit right or even fundamental right, of self defense.
 
Of course they were, we had few laws and no law enforcement or courts nationwide at the time....or very few.

And nothing in the constitution that says guns can or cannot be restricted at the personal individual level...either. They simply can not be restricted by the federal government when involved with State Militias, of which certain able state individuals were mandated to participate and be armed, when called up for the State draft.

But also, imo, the right to keep oneself, ones family and ones papers and property safe, we have an unspelled out, implicit right or even fundamental right, of self defense.
well that's the problem....well your problem...is that the Court said in Heller that the second amendment does just htat...allows individuals to own firearms.
 
Of course they were, we had few laws and no law enforcement or courts nationwide at the time....or very few.

And nothing in the constitution that says guns can or cannot be restricted at the personal individual level...either. They simply can not be restricted by the federal government when involved with State Militias, of which certain able state individuals were mandated to participate and be armed, when called up for the State draft.

But also, imo, the right to keep oneself, ones family and ones papers and property safe, we have an unspelled out, implicit right or even fundamental right, of self defense.




"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" says otherwise.

Simple common sense says that the PEOPLE, as individuals are who are referenced.

Any other interpretation ignores the English language.
 
the federal govt regulated all sorts of things that aren’t rights
Maybe reconsider what “enumerated” means.

And I don’t intend to be just snarky. I mean if more conversationally. Example: there is no constitutional right to smoke weed. For interstate purposes, the Feds can criminalize weed. But for intrastate purposes (let’s use NY as the example), smoking weed is now legal. Can the federal government impose a criminal law prohibiting the smoking of weed within the borders of NY?
What would give them the authority to do that? Criminal laws are state issues.
 
Maybe reconsider what “enumerated” means.

And I don’t intend to be just snarky. I mean if more conversationally. Example: there is no constitutional right to smoke weed. For interstate purposes, the Feds can criminalize weed. But for intrastate purposes (let’s use NY as the example), smoking weed is now legal. Can the federal government impose a criminal law prohibiting the smoking of weed within the borders of NY?
What would give them the authority to do that? Criminal laws are state issues.
enumerated means numbered…1-8 in the BOR
 
haha
No. That’s not what it means. Maybe study a history book.
haha no it literally means numbered…written down rights outlined in the constitution versus say like the right to marry which isn’t
 

Forum List

Back
Top