Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

 

[rightwinger]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

Actually, I think Gitmo is being justified as part of providing a common defense

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

Actually, I think Gitmo is being justified as part of providing a common defense

Really? If it did, do you agree with that?

 

[rightwinger]

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

Actually, I think Gitmo is being justified as part of providing a common defense

Really? If it did, do you agree with that?

I think it is a violation of basic human rights conducted out of fear

 

[Ravi]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

Gun deaths have been declining the past few decades, not increasing.

Link? There are at least 32,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

 

[Ravi]

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

 

[Ravi]

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

 

[Valerie]

The right doesn't obey the NRA, you're a liar. The founders wrote about tyranny and the right to bear arms, you're an idiot. Carson didn't compare us to Nazi Germany, you're a lying idiot.

well good morning to you, mr weasel man...

yeeeawn..only an idiot wouldn't realize that entire post was an article which i did not write.

your opinion of the opinion piece as somehow dishonest, is duly noted and scoffed at...

...it isn’t just the virtually unanimous Republican decision to obey the NRA rather than public opinion in issues like the gun show loophole that’s polarizing the debate and driving liberals to distraction. It’s been the steady drift of conservatives towards radical conceptions of the Second Amendment that make any discussion of “compromise” on gun regulation impossible.

...these radical conceptions are becoming especially alarming in view of the widespread conservative conviction that standard-brand liberalism represents some sort of conspiracy to impose tyranny on the American people.

It’s this latter factor that elevates the theory that the Founders designed the Second Amendment to facilitate precisely the same kind of armed revolution that they undertook from an abstract historical argument to something very scary.

When Ben Carson says he’s now convinced armed resistance to “tyranny” is the purpose of the Second Amendment, it’s kind of worth noting that the man believes we are imminently threatened by “tyranny” if Alinskyites like Obama and Hillary Clinton are allowed to serve in high national office?

If that is indeed what the Second Amendment means—and at the very least Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz share Carson’s position—then who gets to decide when it’s time to start shooting cops and members of the armed forces (because that’s what this means, much as right-to-revolution advocates want to keep it at the level of an abstract “government”)?

People who think Obamacare is “slavery?” or that progressive taxation is “looting?” or that we are at a “tipping point” where those people will soon extinguish private property rights? How about people who think America is like Nazi Germany (again, a comparison Ben Carson is constantly inviting) where millions of babies are being slaughtered? Do they get to decide when armed revolution is appropriate or necessary?

I ask these questions because there’s no doubt in my mind that the emotional underpinning of the right-to-revolution understanding of the Second Amendment is to present an ongoing threat to those of us in the other political camp that there’s only so much of this godless liberalism that good righteous people can be expected to tolerate.

 

[Valerie]

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

what do supreme court justices know about the constitution, after all..?

in fantasia SCOTUS' motto is.. when in doubt, just ask marty..

 

[martybegan]

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

Actually, I think Gitmo is being justified as part of providing a common defense

Really? If it did, do you agree with that?

I think it is a violation of basic human rights conducted out of fear

You didn't answer the question. Can the government justify Gitmo using "provide a common defense"

 

[martybegan]

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

Gun deaths have been declining the past few decades, not increasing.

Link? There are at least 32,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

32,000 includes suicides, and those should not count when one talks about the risks of gun ownership with regards to harm to others. Below is a chart of the homicde rate due to firearms from 1981 to 2010.

 

[martybegan]

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

what do supreme court justices know about the constitution, after all..?

in fantasia SCOTUS' motto is.. when in doubt, just ask marty..

If all you have is appeal to authority, then you have nothing.

"Because my betters say so " is the mantra of a lemming, not a true thinking Citizen.

 

[martybegan]

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
artillery | large guns that are used to shoot over a great distance

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

 

[martybegan]

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

 

[JimH52]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

Yup, someone on here debated with me a few weeks ago to show them how the GOP has moved to the right. I am not sure you can define what Trump is doing as being to the "right." But it sure tickles the baggers and the RW loons. So I guess it could be considered the "right."

Yes, the insane are taking over the asylum. Visions of "One Flew of the Cuckoos Nest" dance through my head. What a strange political season for the Poor GOP.

 

[Valerie]

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

what do supreme court justices know about the constitution, after all..?

in fantasia SCOTUS' motto is.. when in doubt, just ask marty..

If all you have is appeal to authority, then you have nothing.

"Because my betters say so " is the mantra of a lemming, not a true thinking Citizen.

riiight, SCOTUS 'has nothing' because marty says so...

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, the insane are taking over the asylum. Visions of "One Flew of the Cuckoos Nest" dance through my head. What a strange political season for the Poor GOP.

Do you have any idea who the nominee will be for the Dims?

 

[Valerie]

 

[martybegan]

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

what do supreme court justices know about the constitution, after all..?

in fantasia SCOTUS' motto is.. when in doubt, just ask marty..

If all you have is appeal to authority, then you have nothing.

"Because my betters say so " is the mantra of a lemming, not a true thinking Citizen.

riiight, SCOTUS 'has nothing' because marty says so...

So SCOTUS is infallible? I guess Citizens United is then "Settled law". I guess Plessey V Fergueson should not have been overturned. I guess its not worth trying to get Hobby Lobby overturned.

Blind obedience is one thing, selective blind obedience indicates a lack of mental ability.

 

[Valerie]

blind disobedience to facts can be achieved by any simpleton...