# The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 24, 2021)

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…_s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788















“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787















“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789









						The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment
					

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL




					thefederalistpapers.org
				




Case closed Progs._


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 24, 2021)

I'd never let my government tell me I can't have my weapons..


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...


This isn't American anymore.
This is the Communist Socialist Republic of The Democrap Party.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 24, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...


Nope, it's still the same old dump it has always been. Except now we have the internet to kill time.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787



LOL

Obviously not


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...


Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the _Heller _Court.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...


and yet again you failed to back up youre ridiculous comment,,

better you just remain silent than open your mouth and prove your ignorance of reality,,


----------



## Baron (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...



Disarmed peoples end up in slavery. Therefore all left dictators first of all outlaw guns


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...


_"Case closed Progs."_

Also wrong.

‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in _Heller_ and _McDonald._

Indeed, ‘progressives’ own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.

‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

The Second Amendment does not ‘trump’ the First Amendment.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they just created.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...


you should have taken my advice,,


----------



## LeftofLeft (Jan 24, 2021)

As we have seen in state and local jurisdictions that take away guns have an increase in gun violence and crimes committed with guns. Why does the Left have a problem with good guys with guns?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



You know where to put your "fallacy". Lord you are dense, your entire argument is that the Founders didn't really mean what they said? How do you look at yourself knowing what a liar you are?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



Just more "Nuh-Uh. Progressives only know that which they make up as they go along. AS the Framers said :
" _“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28_ "

Progs like to think everything happens in a vacuum, it doesn't. One cannot decipher the Document without taking into account everything that had gone on prior to it's being written. ALL of it MUST interpreted with that past in mind. The King's tyranny was the fountain that gave us the Constitution. The Constitution is the restrainer of tyranny from the Gov and people just like you.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington




THE MISSING QUESTION from all the poised, poisoned media.  What happened on 1/6 wasn't an act of insurrection but an act of patriotism.  A free people standing up to an unjust, unlawful government demanding their voice be heard.

And STILL they do not get it.

The media can lie and spin all they want.  The Biden/Pelosi government can posture all they want.  But sooner or later, 300 MILLION people will not be denied their country.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 24, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington
> ...



Nancy set the narrative and the little Prog lemmings picked it up and ran with it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


‘Justice Scalia, writing in _Heller_, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant *the preposterousness of insurrectionism*. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’





__





						The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
					

By Mike Dorf   As I  reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....




					www.dorfonlaw.org
				




Insurrectionism is preposterous because the notion that untrained civilians with semi-automatic small arms could ‘overthrow’ a government defended by the modern US military is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

More importantly, it runs counter to our most fundamental tenets of American democracy – the will of the people.

That a minority of citizens incorrectly perceive the Federal government to have become ‘tyrannical’ doesn’t make it so; and it doesn’t ‘authorize’ that wrongheaded minority to take up arms against a lawfully elected government that reflects the will of the people.

Insurrectionism is nothing more than treason, completely repugnant to the rule of law, the will of the people, and the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 24, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


What are the criteria of ‘tyranny?’

Absent consensus as to what ‘tyranny’ actually is, any armed insurrection against a constitutionally elected government is nothing more than treason.

Absent the consent of the majority of the people that government has in fact become ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against a constitutionally elected government is nothing but lawless rebellion.

And the notion that government will refrain from becoming ‘tyrannical’ because it ‘fears’ an armed citizenry is as ridiculous as it is wrong; as already established, untrained civilians armed with nothing but semi-automatic weapons are no match for a professional standing army – the ‘_Red Dawn_’ motif is an idiotic rightwing fantasy.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




scalia was a traitor that should be dug up and shit on,,


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jan 24, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Ahhhhh, the "It depends on what the definition of is is" defense. Moron. Intelligent people do not rely on a "consensus" for anything. 

This definition works for me.

1*: *oppressive power every form of tyranny over the mind of man— Thomas Jefferson especially *: *oppressive power exerted by government the tyranny of a police state


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



That is not true.
First of all, case law based on SCOTUS ruling had always been that all federal firearm jurisdiction was banned.
The first federal firearm law was in 1927.
The U.S. Congress passes the Miller Act, a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.
Then there was the National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating the manufacture, sale, and possession of fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.
The fact there was no federal firearm legislation at all for 150 years, to me indicates there likely still should be no federal firearm legislation.
That period when these laws were passed were an anomaly, much like federal income tax, the National Guard, WWI, and Prohibition.
It was an insane period of federalization that the founder would not have at all agreed with.

Secondly is that not only was this country founded upon insurrection, but the founder wrote very warmly about insurrection, and how the tree of liberty would need to be often made to flourish by the spilling of blood.  They were adamant that mercenary troops would be inherently corrupt and that this country should rely ONLY on volunteer citizen soldiers.  And that insurrection would be regularly necessary.  
Here is Jefferson directly:
{...
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
...}





						The tree of liberty... (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
					






					www.monticello.org
				




As to whether or not the SCOTUS Heller ruling had any implication on insurrection, it clearly did not because it was not relevant.
The decision was about home defense and whether or not an armed security guard had to dismantle his service pistol every night.
So there is no way Heller could have covered any aspect of insurrection.
But we know that insurrection has to be totally legal because this country was founded upon insurrection, and Jefferson and all the founders agreed in the Declaration of Independence.  It is the Declaration of Independence that enshrines insurrection.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Total nonsense.
An insurrection does not have to counter tanks and planes.
Tanks and planes would never know where to blow up.
Insurrections are asymmetric warfare, where you hide and kill your enemies secretly, like when they sleep, eat, piss, etc.
No army has ever won against a determined insurgency.
Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

And it is also obviously a total lie to claim an insurgency, which obviously has to be the will of the people, could ever "run counter" to the fundamental tenets of American democracy.  
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence is to justify insurrection by the will of the people.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the notion that government will refrain from becoming ‘tyrannical’ because it ‘fears’ an armed citizenry is as ridiculous as it is wrong; as already established, untrained civilians armed with nothing but semi-automatic weapons are no match for a professional standing army – the ‘_Red Dawn_’ motif is an idiotic rightwing fantasy.



I find that particularly disturbing, because clearly a popular armed insurrection most certainly is a LEFT WING absolute fact.
This country is based on armed insurrection that absolutely succeeded.
All countries used to be right wing monarchies, and they all went through left wing insurrections in order to lose their monarchies.
The fact you would then incorrectly associate armed insurrection with the RIGHT, is incredibly disturbing.
It really calls into question your whole understanding of history, government, and political theory.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 2, 2021)

A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a letter by Jefferson that he used to create a fake "Separation of Church and State" that was not found in the Constitution. Later on the Court found a "right to privacy" that was not found in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that you can take sentences attributed to Founding Fathers out of context all day long but all that counts is what was argued at the time and voted upon and ratified and placed in the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in _Heller_ and _McDonald._
> 
> Indeed, ‘progressives’ own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.
> 
> ...



Totally wrong.
Progressive means increasing individual liberties at the destruction of tyranny and corruption, and always implies armed insurrection when needed.
Progressive means that not all is yet right with government and personal liberty guarantees.
And clearly the historical precedent is then to fight with arms in order to gain those personal liberty guarantees.
The Civil War was such a progressive spilling of blood.
The Declaration of Independence enshrines the principle.
You can't be a progressive, liberal, or left leaning unless you are willing to shed blood in rebellion against tyranny.

And by the way, when you write, "The Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they just created."
That is all wrong.
The 2nd amendment was written before the republic existed, and was created in order to entice states to start finally joining in.
And before the 2nd amendment was written, states were strongly concerned the federal government would try to take away they ability to rebel if it became necessary.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



The only failure here is your stupid response.  Do you really think you saying "Nuh-Uh" to the very words of the Founding Fathers?


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



Do you have any idea how silly you sound?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


A minority of Americans thought the British Crown was tyrannical and threw off British chains.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...


The case is not closed. The weapons they used were muskets. They knew nothing about weapons like bazookas and machine guns. The late Antonin Scalia pointed this out. You cannot say the founding fathers meant for people to own machine guns and other heavy weapons.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



Anything you oppose is communism and socialism. Right wing fascists like you are attacking this country.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington
> ...



Jan 6 was a attack against this country. Their voice was heard in November and they lost.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


That's totally ass-backwards from the truth. 
You leftists hate this country and everything about it......and I love this country. 
I'm not the lying individual attacking it.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...



Progs ALWAYS go to the illogical extreme. NOBODY is trying to make a case for that. You don't get my AR or my Mags.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


Thanks for letting me know the democrat party is now "the country."



busybee01 said:


> Their voice was heard in November and they lost.


The democrats?


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 5, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


If the Bee weren't 180° ass-backwards from the facts and truth, he wouldn't be a good democrat.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

whitehall said:


> A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a letter by Jefferson that he used to create a fake "Separation of Church and State" that was not found in the Constitution. Later on the Court found a "right to privacy" that was not found in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that you can take sentences attributed to Founding Fathers out of context all day long but all that counts is what was argued at the time and voted upon and ratified and placed in the Constitution.



There is no fake separation of church and state. It is very clear that they did not support a state sponsored religion as in the Church of England. Yet that is what right wing fascists are doing by imposing their religious beliefs on others by force of law. The Supreme Court is making churches more powerful than the state. That is a violation of the Constitution that right wing fascists on the Supreme Court are okay with.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...



The entire country supports reasonable gun regulation. The founding fathers knew nothing about machine guns. If they had, they might have altered what they said.

You clowns lost in November.


----------



## busybee01 (Jul 5, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > busybee01 said:
> ...



A liar like you talks about the truth? The only thing that is ass backwards are your brains.


----------



## JustAGuy1 (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a letter by Jefferson that he used to create a fake "Separation of Church and State" that was not found in the Constitution. Later on the Court found a "right to privacy" that was not found in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that you can take sentences attributed to Founding Fathers out of context all day long but all that counts is what was argued at the time and voted upon and ratified and placed in the Constitution.
> ...



Lord the stupid is strong in this one.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > JustAGuy1 said:
> ...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.


While normally that would be true, if we are trying to establish the intent of the founding document, that authority is absolutely necessary, AND when it comes to law, in general, it is NOTHING BUT appeals to authority.  Anything failing to cite authority is SHIT.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.


So, why even have a constitution, if it only exist based on what 9 justices say?  Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

(and no, that is not what Marbury v. Madison stands for. It's a jurisdictional case)



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’


Yeah, ignore that whole "security of a free state" purpose expressly announced.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Jul 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> > “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> ...


No, that's wrong.  The Supreme Court was never given the power to interpret the Constitution, nor to change the meaning of what it says.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> The entire country supports reasonable gun regulation.


BULLSHIT.  And we already have reasonable and UNreasonable gun regulation!  To the nines.



busybee01 said:


> The founding fathers knew nothing about machine guns.


Ahha.  






busybee01 said:


> You clowns lost in November.


Famous last words.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 5, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





 One can always tell when you hit a nerve of truth with you.


----------



## badger2 (Jul 5, 2021)

The Chinese invention of gunpowder evolved from resentment (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China). There are still many fixated on this invention. Even John Wesley held prayer meetings in an abandoned gun factory.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> scalia was a traitor that should be dug up and shit on,,


I wouldn't go that far but he was definitely a fraud.  He was not the originalist that he pretended to be.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 19, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> The entire country supports reasonable gun regulation. The founding fathers knew nothing about machine guns. If they had, they might have altered what they said.
> 
> You clowns lost in November.



Wrong!
It does not matter how many people are stupid enough to want gun control.  Its still fundamentally illegal in a democratic republic.
If 99% wanted to enslave 1%, it would be illegal because a democratic republic is not majority rule, but the rule of law based on inherent individual rights.
And clearly gun control can only always ever result in anything but an authoritarian dictatorship, eventually.

And no, the founding fathers would be unchanged by modern weapons.  A saber or blunderbuss is quite capable of the same multiple rate of death as a machine gun.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Total nonsense.
> An insurrection does not have to counter tanks and planes.
> Tanks and planes would never know where to blow up.
> Insurrections are asymmetric warfare, where you hide and kill your enemies secretly, like when they sleep, eat, piss, etc.
> ...



I looked up the difference between insurrection and insurgency, expecting them to be the same thing.  Then I found this definition that claims they're different:

As nouns the difference between *insurgency* and *insurrection* is that *insurgency* is rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent while *insurrection* is an organized opposition to an authority; a mutiny; a rebellion.​
So, in other words.. They're completely different: insurgency is rebellion while insurrection is... rebellion.

And a bunch of insurgents, insurrectionists, or just plain rebels, from the dark ages has now defeated both the Soviet Union and the United States..


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I find that particularly disturbing, because clearly a popular armed insurrection most certainly is a LEFT WING absolute fact.
> This country is based on armed insurrection that absolutely succeeded.
> All countries used to be right wing monarchies, and they all went through left wing insurrections in order to lose their monarchies.
> The fact you would then incorrectly associate armed insurrection with the RIGHT, is incredibly disturbing.
> It really calls into question your whole understanding of history, government, and political theory.


Antifa, BLM, and the Marxist left are clearly the ones trying to overturn the United States.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 19, 2021)

whitehall said:


> A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a letter by Jefferson that he used to create a fake "Separation of Church and State" that was not found in the Constitution. Later on the Court found a "right to privacy" that was not found in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that you can take sentences attributed to Founding Fathers out of context all day long but all that counts is what was argued at the time and voted upon and ratified and placed in the Constitution.



Rights are not created by or contained in the Constitution.
That is because rights are infinite, so can never be enumerated.
The only thing the Constitution intended to do, was to list a few very specific restrictions on the federal government.
It avoided anything referring to states.
And yes there has always been a right to privacy, self determination of one's own body, etc., so there is a right of women to have abortions if they want.
And while there originally was no separation of church and state in states like Pennsylvania or Massachusetts originally, clearly that was a mistake and it is good it was rectified.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 19, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Antifa, BLM, and the Marxist left are clearly the ones trying to overturn the United States.



At some point, all decent people will and should support insurrection.
This country has a checkered history.
The Spanish American war was evil, WWI was evil, Prohibition was evil, the War on Drugs is evil, asset forfeiture is evil, the invasion of Iraq was evil, the war in Vietnam was evil, the invasion of Panama was evil, the invasion Grenada was evil, etc.
Is it already so bad it should be destroyed?
That depends on if you are one of the people this government illegally abused or not?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

busybee01 said:


> The case is not closed. The weapons they used were muskets. They knew nothing about weapons like bazookas and machine guns. The late Antonin Scalia pointed this out. You cannot say the founding fathers meant for people to own machine guns and other heavy weapons.











						A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons
					

George Washington commissioned 100 of the Belton Flintlock muskets in 1777.




					billypenn.com
				




Modern firearms were being developed during the time of the revolution.  They knew there was, and would be, more than the musket.  Even if they had considered only the musket, which they did not do, then the fact that the government got more advanced weapons would clearly have to be taken as proof for the need to protect more advanced weapons for the people.  

Also, from the OP:


JustAGuy1 said:


> “_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is *a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms*, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
> _


_
The Founders definitely intended that the people would own the same arms as the government.  They clearly, from many of the quotes in the OP, meant for those weapons to be a defense, or even offense, against governmental overreach and  tyranny.  In fact, there's zero mention of sport or hunting and very little mention of personal or familial self-defense.

They knew about cannons and cannons and warships were owned by civilians._


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> Progs ALWAYS go to the illogical extreme. NOBODY is trying to make a case for that. You don't get my AR or my Mags.



So, after all your positioning, even posting all those quotes from the Founders, it turns out that you're actually a gun controller.  You have much in common with busybee01 and David Chipman;  you agree that the government can and should infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, you only disagree on which arms they should restrict us from owning.  No wonder we're losing the fight.

The Founders absolutely DID intend for us to own machine guns, bazookas, and other terrible weapons of war.  To quote Tench Coxe,

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, *and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American*… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No, that's wrong.  The Supreme Court was never given the power to interpret the Constitution, nor to change the meaning of what it says.



What Marbury gave the Court, or what the Court assumed in Marbury, is the authority of the Court to consider the Constitutionality of a law when considering a case based on a law.  And we want them to do that; otherwise, when a law violates the Constitution, there would be no way to challenge it.  There would be no way to challenge any gun ban.

The problem is, most courts and most justices, don't weigh a law against the Constitution. They have set themselves above the law and the Constitution.  When a government act is absolutely, even admittedly, in violation of the Constitution and one who is supposed to be among the most conservative justices in history claims that it's unconstitutional but it's OK for now but just don't do it again, President Biden.  Well, that proves that the Court, even the supposed, though proven otherwise, conservative justices appointed by Trump care nothing at all about the Constitution.

Trump did a lot of great things, but he really did suck at choosing/appointing people.  He misunderstood because, in industry, you fire people who don't go along and pay those who do very well.  It doesn't work that way in government so he didn't get the loyalty he was used to.  He just had too much faith in humanity and was taken in by so many of his appointees and advisors... The man was great as was his love for the country.  But his three Court appointees have been a huge disappointment.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Rights are not created by or contained in the Constitution.
> That is because rights are infinite, so can never be enumerated.
> The only thing the Constitution intended to do, was to list a few very specific restrictions on the federal government.
> It avoided anything referring to states.
> ...



Do I have a right to shoot my guns?  Even if you're in front of it?  Do I have a right to swing my baseball bat?  Even if you're in front of it?  How the hell do you get that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy even if there's a child in front of it?

Her body, her choice, ended when she spread her legs.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 19, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> BULLSHIT.  And we already have reasonable and UNreasonable gun regulation!  To the nines.
> 
> 
> Ahha.  View attachment 509176
> ...



What are the reasonable gun restrictions?  And what is the constitutional authority for them?  If they have the authority to make "reasonable" restrictions then they have the power to make any restriction.  All that's left is to debate what is "reasonable"


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons
> 
> 
> George Washington commissioned 100 of the Belton Flintlock muskets in 1777.
> ...



I would even go further and say that the Founders did not the government to have professional men at arms at all, because would do whatever those who paid them, told them to do.  I would say the Founders ONLY wanted citizen soldiers, from the general population, and had their own arms.

Who do you trust more with any arms, mercenaries working for money, or the actual citizens of the country?


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Do I have a right to shoot my guns?  Even if you're in front of it?  Do I have a right to swing my baseball bat?  Even if you're in front of it?  How the hell do you get that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy even if there's a child in front of it?
> 
> Her body, her choice, ended when she spread her legs.



No, humans do not have a choice.
To be normal, most of them MUST have sex.
The fact that can and will result in pregnancy, is irrelevant.
Consciousness is what makes human special, and an unborn does not have that.
They don't care.
In fact they are incapable of thinking about anything at all.
So the woman is the only one who gets to say anything.
Everyone else should remain silent as to what she wants to do.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> What are the reasonable gun restrictions?  And what is the constitutional authority for them?  If they have the authority to make "reasonable" restrictions then they have the power to make any restriction.  All that's left is to debate what is "reasonable"



There may be some reasonable restrictions states and cities can make, but clearly the 2nd amendment was about banning any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people


Progressives forget that "the law" itself does not come about or exist by virtue of an overwhelming police force, as to put down a rebellion. Quite the contrary.

In particular a felony or "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" — under the U.S. Constitution —may only be tried by the indictment of a Grand Jury of randomly selected citizens.

It's part of the process, called the due process of law. An alleged offense can only be tried as a crime if it is the will of the people that it be tried as such.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 20, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong!
> It does not matter how many people are stupid enough to want gun control.  Its still fundamentally illegal in a democratic republic.
> If 99% wanted to enslave 1%, it would be illegal because a democratic republic is not majority rule, but the rule of law based on inherent individual rights.
> And clearly gun control can only always ever result in anything but an authoritarian dictatorship, eventually.
> ...


in a democratic republic 99% could enslave 1%,, thats the democratic process,,

we are a constitutional republic and the constitution part is what stops the 99%

not sure why so many people get that wrong,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense –


... among other things.
Why do you always leave out the "amoing other things"?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in _Heller_ and _McDonald._


This is an abject and outright lie.
Liberals and progressives continue to push for unnecessary anf ineffective restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, not the least of which is a ban on certain "bearable arms " - indeed a great man of them want to repeas the 2nd in its entirety.

Why do you lie like this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionism is preposterous because the notion that untrained civilians with semi-automatic small arms could ‘overthrow’ a government defended by the modern US military is as ridiculous as it is wrong.


Tell us about Afghanistan, August 2021.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 20, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There may be some reasonable restrictions states and cities can make, but clearly the 2nd amendment was about banning any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.


That's the mistake many make.  The Founders demonstrated that they were able to be quite clear about which parts of the Constitution affected only the Federal Government and which were to apply to all government.  

The First Amendment, for instance, says that Congress shall make no law.  See, that actually only targeted the Federal Government.  So, do you understand that, originally, they explicitly intended not to forbid the States from abridging free speech?

Then, in the Second Amendment, there was no such mention of Congress.  It clearly was intended, from the start, to apply to the States.  Inside the United States, it was their intention, the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.



That is a totally incorrect assumption because obviously this country was founded on the overthrow by force of arms of the legal government that was NOT reflecting the will of the people.  All governments, whether originally legal or not, become corrupt, fail to follow the will of the people, and eventually MUST be overthrown by force.
There never has nor ever will be an exception to that.
All governments must at some time be overthrown.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionism is preposterous because the notion that untrained civilians with semi-automatic small arms could ‘overthrow’ a government defended by the modern US military is as ridiculous as it is wrong.



That is silly.
First of all, there are not supposed to be any "untrained civilians", in that all should learn the ways of arms.
Second is that no military can ever normally win against a whole determined civilian population, because the military is out numbered 1000 to 1.
And that is if any military would even try to stand against the population, since most of the military would likely sympathize and join the insurrection against an evil government.

The US military has never won against a determined insurgency, like Vietnam, the Philippines, Afghanistan, etc.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 20, 2021)

JustAGuy1 said:


> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
> 
> ...


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> That's the mistake many make.  The Founders demonstrated that they were able to be quite clear about which parts of the Constitution affected only the Federal Government and which were to apply to all government.
> 
> The First Amendment, for instance, says that Congress shall make no law.  See, that actually only targeted the Federal Government.  So, do you understand that, originally, they explicitly intended not to forbid the States from abridging free speech?
> 
> Then, in the Second Amendment, there was no such mention of Congress.  It clearly was intended, from the start, to apply to the States.  Inside the United States, it was their intention, the right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.



I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
But what does "infringed" mean?
For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



Yes, but the providing for the organized militia in no way implies the organized militia was the main need, use, and right of defense with firearms.
The 4th and 5th amendment are clear about the right of an individual to be secure on his life, home, and property.
And there would be no way to do that if some how individual weapons ownership could be curtailed.
Any unreasonable limit on weapons ownership would clearly break the whole concept of a democratic republic, where all rights emanate from the inherent rights of individuals.
The police and military for example, can NOT get their authority to be armed from government, because government is no source of any authority at all.
The police and military only can be armed because they can borrow our right to be armed as long as they are defending us, and we delegate.
But if we did not have that right to armed, then we could not delegate it to the police and military, so then they could not be armed either.
We are not at the bottom of the rights chain, but at the top.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> ...





Fuck off you fascist piece of shit.  These are the MEN that wrote the document you twerp.  Their pinky fingers were smarter than you'll ever be.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> ...



Not at all true.
The point of the whole Bill of Rights was to try to reassure the states that the federal government would not become abusive.
So it was not at all interested in listing individual rights, even if they strongly believed in them.
Instead, the entire and sole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set hard limits on federal jurisdiction.
And that absolutely had to do with preserving liberty, fighting tyranny, and preventing federal excess or overreach.
We have all read the Founders, and they clearly say that is the entire purpose of the whole Bill of Rights.

The Heller ruling comes from the 14th amendment instead, which has an entirely different objective, which is protecting individual rights from state abuse.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
> But what does "infringed" mean?
> For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
> Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.


The People are the Militia; you are either organized and Well Regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.

_I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. _(Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes, but the providing for the organized militia in no way implies the organized militia was the main need, use, and right of defense with firearms.
> The 4th and 5th amendment are clear about the right of an individual to be secure on his life, home, and property.
> And there would be no way to do that if some how individual weapons ownership could be curtailed.
> Any unreasonable limit on weapons ownership would clearly break the whole concept of a democratic republic, where all rights emanate from the inherent rights of individuals.
> ...


The point is, well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 

The unorganized militia, as Individual persons of the People, are subject to the police power of their State.

_Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. _(Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia; you are either organized and Well Regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> ...



That is fine.
The police power of a State comes from the need to balance between the inherent rights of all the individuals in the State.
That still leaves what "infringe" means, but I think it is appropriate for the federal constitution to leave that for each state to decide on their own.
No argument from me from what you wrote so far.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The point is, well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia, as Individual persons of the People, are subject to the police power of their State.
> 
> _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. _(Illinois State Constitution)



Seems you are just repeating, and more personal interpretation would be nice.
But if I take your intent as being that the fed 2nd amendment restricts fed infringement, and the state article is what restricts state infringement, then I would agree.

That is pretty straight forward division of jurisdictions.

The confusing part for most people, comes with the 14th amendment, where the courts can use federal law, (or anything else), to help discover what individual right may be, that the courts can then use to protect individual rights from federal, state, or municipal infringement?
That leads to the messy and unpleasant task of court making legislation in effect, but I think that is just how it has to be, since real law can never be confined only to legislative statutes.  That is because rights are infinite and mere legislation can never hope to specify more than a small fraction of the totality of what is law, in the abstract.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is fine.
> The police power of a State comes from the need to balance between the inherent rights of all the individuals in the State.
> That still leaves what "infringe" means, but I think it is appropriate for the federal constitution to leave that for each state to decide on their own.
> No argument from me from what you wrote so far.


Individuals of the People may be Infringed by the police power of a State; only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  It should be a self-evident Truth.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Seems you are just repeating, and more personal interpretation would be nice.
> But if I take your intent as being that the fed 2nd amendment restricts fed infringement, and the state article is what restricts state infringement, then I would agree.
> 
> That is pretty straight forward division of jurisdictions.
> ...


Individuals of the unorganized militia may be Infringed by the police power of a State:  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._ (Illinois State Constitution)

Well regulated militia (of the People) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Individuals of the People may be Infringed by the police power of a State; only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  It should be a self-evident Truth.



 I would like to agree with you, but you keep making such strange statements, its hard to tell.
Like you seem to be implying the police power of a State comes from the State, and it doesn't.
All legal authority can only come from one place, which is the inherent rights of individuals.
All the police power of a State is, is the ability of the people to delegate some of their inherent authority to those paid representatives we hire to protect our rights for us.
So the individual right to be armed comes from the same source as the individual right to be safe from the irresponsible use of arms by others.
So one is not superior to the other, and then some reasonable compromise between rights has to be worked out.

Whether people are organized or unorganized makes no difference.
Being organized does not ensure they are safer or more responsible.
For example, the Gestapo, southern plantation owners, and Mafia were all highly organized, and that did not make them any more trustworthy.

Does a single individual have a right to go against the whole organized, delegated, system of government?
Of course they do if the government is in error.
Such as the Dred Scott Decision.
That decision obviously was totally wrong and made anyone who upheld it, a criminal by any measure.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Individuals of the unorganized militia may be Infringed by the police power of a State:  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._ (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Well regulated militia (of the People) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



But the point of the 14th amendment was that the courts and the federal government also after the 14th was ratified, to prevent any government from infringing, (undo abuse), or any individual right.

So then the only way the 2nd amendment is used by the 14 is the theory that if a right is so important that the feds are to be denied infringement, then likely the states should also be denied infringement.
So your referencing the introductory clause about organized or not, is inappropriate.
The need to implement the 14th amendment does not at all care what the original intent of the 2nd amendment was.
The need to implement the 14th amendment is using the "Pneumbra Effect", attempting to hunt for individual rights that might be accidentally revealed only by their shadow, in other documents, like the 2nd amendment.
It is an indirect inference, not explicitly stated or intended to be stated.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I would like to agree with you, but you keep making such strange statements, its hard to tell.
> Like you seem to be implying the police power of a State comes from the State, and it doesn't.
> All legal authority can only come from one place, which is the inherent rights of individuals.
> All the police power of a State is, is the ability of the people to delegate some of their inherent authority to those paid representatives we hire to protect our rights for us.
> ...


It only seems strange if you appeal to ignorance of the law. I understand that Legal Authority is Delegated to the State and no longer reserved as a right of Individuals when there is conflict (with certain exceptions).  It is Why, the Judicial branch is delegated the judicial power and not Individuals.  

_The police power has its origin and purpose in the general welfare of the state or, as it is sometimes expressed, the public health, public morals, and public safety. The government may properly exercise its police powers to regulate land use as well._--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers

Thus, yes, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not the People are organized or unorganized.  Our Second Amendment is clear.  Well regulated militia of the People being Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  

The unorganized militia, as Individuals, are subject to the police power of a State; this is a self-evident Truth since gun control regulations are part of that police power.  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._ (Illinois State Constitution)  

Your view merely appeals to ignorance of express law.  You confuse our First Amendment with our Second Amendment.  Context is everything.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and the People are the Militia for that purpose. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> But the point of the 14th amendment was that the courts and the federal government also after the 14th was ratified, to prevent any government from infringing, (undo abuse), or any individual right.
> 
> So then the only way the 2nd amendment is used by the 14 is the theory that if a right is so important that the feds are to be denied infringement, then likely the states should also be denied infringement.
> So your referencing the introductory clause about organized or not, is inappropriate.
> ...


The 14th Amendment does not nullify our Second Amendment.  States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It only seems strange if you appeal to ignorance of the law. I understand that Legal Authority is Delegated to the State and no longer reserved as a right of Individuals when there is conflict (with certain exceptions).  It is Why, the Judicial branch is delegated the judicial power and not Individuals.
> 
> _The police power has its origin and purpose in the general welfare of the state or, as it is sometimes expressed, the public health, public morals, and public safety. The government may properly exercise its police powers to regulate land use as well._--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers
> 
> ...



No, legal authority is not automatically delegated to the state.  The state has to deserve that delegated authority by facilitating the greatest rights for all, through equitable compromise.

When the state does not do its duty to facilitate the greatest rights for all, then it not only has no authority, due to our delegated authority we loaned to the state being rescinded, but the state can then become the greatest threat to our individual rights that exists, so then deserves to be destroyed.
The proof of that is obvious, not only by the American Revolution, but the fact there is not any state that has ever not required at least on violent revolution.  And the reality is that most states require a violent revolution ever 400 years or so.  No state is ever static or to be trusted.

But I do not need to argue anything else, because I agree the 2nd amendment was not intended to prevent state or local firearm restriction.
It did not become an issue of individual firearm rights until the 14th amendment.  And it is more properly addressed in state constitutions.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, legal authority is not automatically delegated to the state. The state has to deserve that delegated authority by facilitating the greatest rights for all, through equitable compromise.


We have State Constitutions and You have the equivalent to a First Amendment at the State level.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The 14th Amendment does not nullify our Second Amendment.  States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People.



I never suggested the 14th nullified the 2nd.
The point is there are 2 different amendments with different goals.
The 2nd was to limit federal infringement on weapons rights.
The 14th was to limit state infringement on all individual rights.

And I wish you would stop repeating, "States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People."
It is totally unclear what you mean by that, so it would help if you said something else.
For example, what is a "State"?
In theory this country is a loose federation of sovereign states.
But the federal government has thing like the State Department, so is also considered a state.
And that is really confusing when you just say "state".


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have State Constitutions and You have the equivalent to a First Amendment at the State level.



True, and there is also the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in each state constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> True, and there is also the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in each state constitution.


That means there is a procedure for asserting your rights.  

Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the police power of their State for gun control purposes. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I never suggested the 14th nullified the 2nd.
> The point is there are 2 different amendments with different goals.
> The 2nd was to limit federal infringement on weapons rights.
> The 14th was to limit state infringement on all individual rights.
> ...


The 14th merely reiterates our original Constitution and Bill of Right, to "dumb it down for the right-wing".

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That means there is a procedure for asserting your rights.
> 
> Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the police power of their State for gun control purposes.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)



No I have to disagree again when you say, "Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment".
Lets say the whole point of the 2nd amendment was just so that there would be an organized militia available for the feds to draw on.
It does not matter WHY the 2nd prohibits any and all federal firearm jurisdiction, it then just does.
If the states then want their own organized militia or if they want disorganized armed individuals, is totally up to them as far as the 2nd amendment goes.
So it is very wrong to say the 2nd amendment is only for if you are a member of THE organized militia.
All the 2nd amendment can to is stop federal jurisdiction. 
It does not and can not say anything about what states then can decide.

If all you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment ( or any amendment), does not guarantee absolute individual rights, then I would agree.
The 4th and 5th come closes to listing individual rights, like being secure in person and property against government abuse, but since it does not list any details, such as what "due process" is, so is only an abstraction, and can not be legal recourse to prove an individual right.
None of the Bill of Rights enshrines any individual rights.
It just strictly prohibits certain federal jurisdiction and behavior.
That is all it was for, to reduce fear of what the federal government may try to do.
And those fears proved correct, because the federal government now is violating all of those rights to some degree.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The 14th merely reiterates our original Constitution and Bill of Right, to "dumb it down for the right-wing".
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



Very wrong.
Originally states were supreme, could do whatever they wanted.
When states joined the Union, they gave up a very small number of powers to the federal government, but that was all.
There are really NO individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, so the 14th can't be reiterating them.
All the Bill of Rights does is limit federal powers.
Does the 14th limit state powers?
Yes it does.
But it is hugely different than the Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights had a much easier job.
All it has to do was say board topics were out of federal jurisdiction.
The 14th amendment is saying no one, states or feds, can violate an infinite number of individual rights, that can never be fully enumerated.
The 14th is not dividing jurisdiction between states and feds like the Bill of Rights does.
The 14th is establishing the Judiciary as the source that can essentially make law on the fly, as it becomes clear there is any government abuse that needs to be curtailed.
That sound wrong to many people, but there simply is no other way to do it, and that really is how law has always been and must be, because you can never enumerate all of the infinite rights individuals are always supposed to have.
That is why mandated sentence minimums are so incredibly illegal.  The whole point of law is that judges have to be free to use their discretion on what individual rights really are.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Very wrong.
> Originally states were supreme, could do whatever they wanted.
> When states joined the Union, they gave up a very small number of powers to the federal government, but that was all.


You seem to have mostly propaganda and rhetoric.  

This is in our federal Constitution:

Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You seem to have mostly propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is in our federal Constitution:
> 
> Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.



What does that mean?
Here is one interpretation:
{...
*Article* *IV*, *Section* *2* guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens.
...}
That is not good enough because it does not stop slavery, illegally abusing the rights of convicted felons, the illegal War on Drugs, mandated sentences, illegal 3 strikes laws, illegal asset forfeiture, etc.

You seem to have vastly too much faith in our legal system.
But if you were Black or something, and were killed by a cop who was abusing his power, what good would failed means of redress of grievance in this country be?
I don't expect any system to be perfect, and I am willing to accept some abuse by government, as long as the positive is worth the loses.
But that is clearly not going to be true much longer.
The government is becoming exponentially more abusive, corrupt, and illegal.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, were horrendous war crimes, for example.
So then HOW can any one justify something like federal gun control, which is explicitly illegal according to the constitution?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 24, 2021)

I am pretty sure it covers anything in our Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I am pretty sure it covers anything in our Fourteenth Amendment.



That can't be true that the article 4, sec. 2, in the constitution guaranteeing equal treatment between different states, means equal treatment of all individuals within a state, because it did not stop slavery, segregation, etc.
We never did end those abuses within a state, but  clearly the 14th amendment helped a great deal.
There is no doubt the 14th amendment was necessary, and actually did not go far enough even.
States and the federal government are still abusing individual rights.
We need even more protection from government abuses.
While they repealed Prohibition, we still have the illegal war on drugs, for example.
All nanny law proscribing personal behavior that does not directly harm others, is totally illegal under the abstract concepts of a democratic republic.
They are arbitrarily authoritarian, and must not be allowed.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That can't be true that the article 4, sec. 2, in the constitution guaranteeing equal treatment between different states, means equal treatment of all individuals within a state, because it did not stop slavery, segregation, etc.
> We never did end those abuses within a state, but  clearly the 14th amendment helped a great deal.
> There is no doubt the 14th amendment was necessary, and actually did not go far enough even.
> States and the federal government are still abusing individual rights.
> ...


That was the point.  Faithful execution of our own Constitution could have eschewed any perceived need for a Civil War.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That was the point.  Faithful execution of our own Constitution could have eschewed any perceived need for a Civil War.



I don't think so.
Article 4, sect. 2, is trying to prevent one state from discriminating against those of another state.
If both states have slavery, then article 4, sect. 2 is satisfied.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I don't think so.
> Article 4, sect. 2, is trying to prevent one state from discriminating against those of another state.
> If both states have slavery, then article 4, sect. 2 is satisfied.


All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 24, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.



Article 4, sect 2, does not prevent discrimination within a state, but only between states.

The Constitution originally was very weak.
The Articles of Confederation before that was even weaker.
So weak they could not defend the country.
They idea of interfering with states was out of the question.
But now it has gone to the opposite extreme, and the federal government is WAY too powerful.
By collecting so much income tax, the federal government is extorting all the states.
The federal government is to have nothing to do with guns, drugs, medicine, or any of the things the federal government illegally incarcerates a quarter million people over.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
> But what does "infringed" mean?
> For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
> Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.


If that were true then they would have outlawed children carrying firearms.  What the Founders wanted was that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

We know exactly what "infringed" meant in 1789.  From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1768: *Infringe: To violate; to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder.*

We also know what "infringed" means according to today's understanding of the language, from Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary: 

*verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.*


Nothing there about reasonable violations, or reasonable hindrance.  In fact, the word reasonable isn't in the definition at all - not in 1768 or in 2021.

The Founders, in creating the 1st Amendment, identified a seemingly unrelated set of restrictions in the 1st Amendment.  What was the common theme, though, in all of them?  Many think the First  Amendment is about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion.  It is not.  It's about restrictions on the Federal Congress - specific restrictions on things about which Congress cannot pass a law.  Congress shall make no law... 

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, was not a restriction on Congress; it was a rule for all of the United States - not the Federal Government but for all of government in the United States.  Had the Founders wanted to just restrict Congress from passing creating a Federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms then they could have included that in the First Amendment.  Or they _could have_ written the Second Amendment to say,

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms._

They demonstrated in the First Amendment that they were fully capable of assigning restrictions only to the Federal Government and that they knew how to communicate that intention.  In the Second Amendment they did not limit that rule to just the Federal Government.

In the United States of  America, there is no Federal militia.  Militia are state entities.  Being necessary to the security of a free State, and being entities of the States, then it must be that to ensure the security of the States, the right of the people in the States should not be infringed by the States or the Federal Government.  How hard is that to understand?

As an apparent libertarian - not surprising since you're from New Mexico - you get a lot of this stuff pretty close but you're really missing the junction between libertarianism and constitutioanlism in that government has no authority except that voluntarily given to them by the governed.  

We're not a monarchy; there are no Americans that bleed blue blood.  No one has a right to tell you anything about how to live your life by right of their own birth.  Government have what authority they have by the Constitution of the United States of America, and/or by the constitutions of the individual states.  When you understand your own freedom and liberty, and understand the tradeoff made by your forefathers, surrendering some small bit of that liberty by ratifying the Constitution, then you will also understand that the only power government has is that which is explicitly granted by the Constitution.  If you value your own self, you will understand why it is so necessary to fight to keep government within the bounds of the Constitution - including, perhaps especially, regarding the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> If that were true then they would have outlawed children carrying firearms.  What the Founders wanted was that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> We know exactly what "infringed" meant in 1789.  From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1768: *Infringe: To violate; to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder.*
> 
> ...



How do you know there were not state or municipal laws restricting juveniles from packing guns in public back then?
There likely were.
But that is not an infringement in any way, because kids likely should not normally be armed.
So preventing kids from being armed in public infringes upon nothing.
Kids do not have an inherent right or need to be armed in public, and should instead be protected from lethal harm by armed adult parents.

And you are wrong about the Bill of Rights.  Rights are infinite, so it is wrong to ever try to list any rights at all.  So that is not what the Bill of Right was for.  It was only about dividing jurisdiction between federal and all other.
Again, a reasonable restriction is NOT an infringement.  
For example, speed limits are reasonable restrictions, so not an infringement.
I agree militias were by states or municipalities, so feds should have nothing to do with gun laws, but again, juveniles did not belong to militias either.
So there would be no infringing on the militia to not allow juveniles to own guns.

But I am not Libertarian.  Far left actually, more Socialist or Green Party really.
But I can get along with most Libertarian ways of thinking.
The far left and the far right sort of come full circle.
But Gary Johnson was governor from 95 to 2003, and I did not get to NM until 2015.

I agree that individual inherent rights are the only source of legal authority.
But we can delegate some of our individual authority to peace keepers, as long as they just defend rights when they come into conflict.
And surely you have to agree a conflict of rights can happen with firearms.
For example, a drunk shooting into the air on the 4th of July should probably get arrested?
Don't you agree?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Article 4, sect 2, does not prevent discrimination within a state, but only between states.
> 
> The Constitution originally was very weak.
> The Articles of Confederation before that was even weaker.
> ...


It is for federal due process purposes.  States have their own Constitutional clauses regarding equal protection.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is for federal due process purposes.  States have their own Constitutional clauses regarding equal protection.



That is the point.
Protection of individual rights from state abuse was not originally a federal responsibility.
It only became a federal responsibility after the Civil war, the 14th amendment, and blatant discrimination by the states.

But after the 14th amendment, the courts were forced to look at the 2nd amendment in a new light.
They found that the motivation for the 2nd amendment was mostly from individual defense rights.
Which then made some local and state gun control laws illegal.
Hence Heller and McDonald.
Which is not far enough.
Almost all gun control laws likely are illegal.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is the point.
> Protection of individual rights from state abuse was not originally a federal responsibility.
> It only became a federal responsibility after the Civil war, the 14th amendment, and blatant discrimination by the states.
> 
> ...


It is still federal doctrine and States had no authority over entry into the Union after 1808.  

Our Second Amendment is not about natural Individual rights to self-defense.  It is about the security of a free State.  It says so in the first clause. 

This is a State's sovereign right:  _Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed._ (Illinois State Constitution)

This is what natural (individual) rights look like:

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy._ (California State Constitution)


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is still federal doctrine and States had no authority over entry into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not about natural Individual rights to self-defense.  It is about the security of a free State.  It says so in the first clause.
> 
> ...



States and individuals always have authority over union membership if the union violates is contractual agreements and obligations to uphold rights.

I agree the 2nd amendment is not about natural individual rights to self-defense, but it does not matter because the 2nd amendment still precludes any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

I agree the natural individual right to weapons for self defense comes from state constitutions and law.
Problem is people are claiming federal laws supersede state law, and that is not true regarding something like weapons, where the feds were explicitly to be denied any jurisdiction, and states were to have total jurisdiction.
In the case of weapons, state law was supposed to completely supersede federal law.
Same would be true of drugs, medicine, etc.
The feds are way out of bounds.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> States and individuals always have authority over union membership if the union violates is contractual agreements and obligations to uphold rights.


There are procedures to distinguish loyal patriots from just plain rebels without a Cause.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> There are procedures to distinguish loyal patriots from just plain rebels without a Cause.



Yes there is.
The procedures are to compare what a government does, with what it is supposed to legally be constrained by.
Such as a constitution.
And this government is way over the top.
Federal weapons, medical, and drug laws are just plain illegal.
But Vietnam, WMD lies about Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, etc. , are all just hugely immoral war crimes.

I don't blame the Afghans for being angry with the US.
We reneged, cheated, stole, and murdered them.
They were totally innocent.

The only to not rebel against this horrendously corrupt and evil government is that lots of people would get hurt, it likely would fail, and things then could be even worse.
But legally this government is totally criminal.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes there is.
> The procedures are to compare what a government does, with what it is supposed to legally be constrained by.
> Such as a constitution.
> And this government is way over the top.
> ...


Our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.



I don't see how the First Amendment helps?
{...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]
...}
We had over a million people peacefully assembling to protest the Vietnam war, and it did nothing.
There is no means of petitioning the Government any more.
They are too big and don't care.
Did anything happen after it was proven the Government had lied about Iraqi WMD?
Will anything happen after it is proven the Government lied about Afghanistan?
Petitioning only works if you have good government.
We don't.
DC is all crooks and liars.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Aug 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.


In 1808 slaves were property, not persons.   Property can have no rights.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 25, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> In 1808 slaves were property, not persons.   Property can have no rights.



Oddly enough slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to calculating the electoral college votes of slave states.




__





						Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Aug 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _"Case closed Progs."_
> 
> Also wrong.
> 
> ...


And yet Progressives are trying to ban certain firearms that citizens would use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and the 2nd Amendment does mention that the security of a Free State depends on the right of the people to bear arms.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _"Case closed Progs."_
> 
> Also wrong.
> 
> ...



Wrong, the Founders had just shit-canned 2 governments in a row, first the oppressive British government, and then the Articles of Confederation that were too weak.
They were going to try one a little more powerful, but were very cautious and were more than willing to rebel once more if necessary.
May I remind you that we had a long history of rebellions, like the Whisky Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc.

The Amendments were not to fix an existing government, but to get any states to sign up at all.
Until they added the Bill of Rights, not a single state was willing to sign on the the Union.
The Bill of Rights was entirely about putting strict limits on federal jurisdiction, with the 2nd amendment prohibiting any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> And yet Progressives are trying to ban certain firearms that citizens would use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and the 2nd Amendment does mention that the security of a Free State depends on the right of the people to bear arms.



Progressives would never support gun control.
Gun control is always from authoritarians who want government to have a monopoly on the means of power.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What are the criteria of ‘tyranny?’
> 
> Absent consensus as to what ‘tyranny’ actually is, any armed insurrection against a constitutionally elected government is nothing more than treason.
> 
> ...



Totally wrong.
For example, when the government lied to us about WMD in Iraq, they forfeit any authority they had, and should all have been prosecuted for war crimes.
When the government commits such heinous crimes, as the citizens who are the source of the government's power and authority, we are required to destroy it our of our responsibility for creating the criminal organization.

Nor do you know anything about asymmetric warfare.
Not once has the US military ever won against an insurgency.
They can used tank, missiles, and bombers because they do not know who the insurgent are.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are both proof of that.
And if it came down to it, likely the majority of the military would be in the side of the rebellion.

And let us not forget that the list of violations by the government is infinitely long, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, taxation of felons without representation, federal gun control, federal medical laws, etc.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I don't see how the First Amendment helps?
> {...
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]
> ...}
> ...


You need standing and a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 26, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> In 1808 slaves were property, not persons.   Property can have no rights.


After 1808 natural born persons were citizens of the Union.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Progressives would never support gun control.
> Gun control is always from authoritarians who want government to have a monopoly on the means of power.


You contradict yourself.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need standing and a Cause.



All taxpayers have standing and cause when we spent trillions on an illegal war , causing a recession.
All the half million imprisoned by the War on Drugs have standing and cause.

The problem is the judiciary are selected from the wealthy elite, who simply do not care.
Government crimes generate trillions in profits and that creates a feedback system of corruption.
Eventually there is no choice but to start over.
That is not desirable, but still inevitable eventually.
After some point, to not rebel is to make one guilty of complicity.
Anyone who does not understand that armed rebellion is an essential part of any good government cycle, is just fooling themselves.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> You contradict yourself.



What I am saying is that people in favor of gun control are not progressives, but authoritarians.
When Hillary supported gun control, she declared herself as authoritarian, not left wing.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> All taxpayers have standing and cause when we spent trillions on an illegal war , causing a recession.
> All the half million imprisoned by the War on Drugs have standing and cause.


You have a First Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You have a First Amendment.



That is the point.
That is like having a complaint department at a store, that does nothing.
When all peaceful means of conflict resolution have failed, there is no other choice than to resort to force.
That is simple historic reality.
It always has to happen eventually.
The fact force is not desirable does not change the fact it eventually becomes necessary.
And eventually this is always true.
As far as those murdered or imprisoned by illegal wars, abusive police, etc., it is already way beyond the point where rebellion is warranted.
The only reason why we should not already be committed to armed rebellion is not that it is unwarranted on a scale of justice, but that not enough have been abused by the system for a rebellion to currently have much chance of succeeding.
The only reason to not wage armed rebellion right now, is not legal, moral, or ethical, but ONLY due to the practical reason that is would likely fail.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is the point.
> That is like having a complaint department at a store, that does nothing.
> When all peaceful means of conflict resolution have failed, there is no other choice than to resort to force.
> That is simple historic reality.
> ...


Due Process applies in federal venues.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> What I am saying is that people in favor of gun control are not progressives, but authoritarians.
> When Hillary supported gun control, she declared herself as authoritarian, not left wing.


Problem here is you use the classic, not current, defitnion of "left wing" and "progressive".
Hillary, et al, are unquestionably, progressive left-wing authoritarians.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Due Process applies in federal venues.



If we had "due process", then not a single person would be imprisoned for federal drugs or weapons charges, which clearly are outside of any possible federal jurisdiction.

The government was drafting people for WWI, which was clearly illegal, resulting in wrongful deaths.
The Axis were the good guys in WWI, and we were on the side of the terrorists, murderers, and theives.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Problem here is you use the classic, not current, defitnion of "left wing" and "progressive".
> Hillary, et al, are unquestionably, progressive left-wing authoritarians.



The whole Progressive movement is not just a historical reality that can't be changed, but is defined by its focus on individual liberties and populist focus.
It is wrong to let the democrats abuse what not only is an important legacy, but basic word meanings.
Individuals should not  be allowed such cultural appropriations.
It is like how the word "Semitic" has been taken over to mean "Jewish" when in reality it means "Arab".
Such appropriations must be denied.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The whole Progressive movement is not just a historical reality that can't be changed, but is defined by its focus on individual liberties and populist focus.


Unless you mean "progressive" as the term is currently in use in the west.  These people are authoritarian socialists.
You can complain that the people have distorted the tern as originally used, but you cannot deny its current meaning.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unless you mean "progressive" as the term is currently in use in the west.  These people are authoritarian socialists.
> You can complain that the people have distorted the tern as originally used, but you cannot deny its current meaning.



Sorry, but socialist also can not mean or imply to "authoritarian" either.
Socialism is a decentralized, populist movement to prevent a wealthy elite from forcing economic slavery on poor workers.
Again, it is just populist representation.
Authoritarian means without populist input or representation.
Socialism requires populist input and representation.

If current figures like Hillary call themselves one thing when they are another, the appropriate response is not to accept their misuse of terms.
The meaning of terms can not instead be allowed to change.
That would make language gibberish, where everyone made their own meaning of words.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Sorry, but socialist also can not mean or imply to "authoritarian" either.


In practice, ever socialist country has been authoritarian, and so it is entirely possible to have an authoritarian socialist.
Like Hillary.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> In practice, ever socialist country has been authoritarian, and so it is entirely possible to have an authoritarian socialist.
> Like Hillary.



I disagree.
Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.
Any time anything is authoritarian, it is not socialist, by definition and logical reality.
Authoritarians who claim to be socialist simply are trying to fool people with propaganda, and that has to be resisted.
You can't let people change the meaning of words, or else no words mean anything.
Socialism can never be authoritarian.
That are exact opposites, as black is to white.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.


The USSR, North Korea and China disagree.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> The USSR, North Korea and China disagree.



None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.
The Germans sent Lenin into Russia to get them out of WWI, and he was just a German agent, who along with Stalin, were capitalists who killed all the socialists.
These countries were centralists, serving a wealthy elite.  That is capitalism.
That is the opposite of populist socialism that is supposed to be egalitarian.

Before one can even consider having socialism or something else as your economic plan, you first have to have democracy, so that leaves these countries out from day one.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.


M'kay.  Thanks.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> How do you know there were not state or municipal laws restricting juveniles from packing guns in public back then?
> There likely were.
> But that is not an infringement in any way, because kids likely should not normally be armed.
> So preventing kids from being armed in public infringes upon nothing.
> ...



I'm not wrong about the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights defined a set of rights protected explicitly and then the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the Bill of Rights, basically said what you said - that rights exist beyond those identified explicitly and that those were protected just as much as those listed.  That's why there was so much debate over whether or not there should even be such a thing.  

Many felt that having a bill of rights would later be interpreted that things not listed would not be protected; government would claim that only those rights listed are protected.  And they were right; there are many who suggest the government can do something because it isn't explicitly protected in the Constitution.  On the other side, there were those who felt that if there was no bill of rights, the government would claim the authority to control things not intended for it to control.  And they were right.  Imagine gun rights today if there was no 2nd Amendment.  How many are claiming that your phone is not protected or your online activity?  So, both sides of that debate were right; both recognized that government would feed itself.

As for the gun side of your argument, if there were laws against children owning guns, share them.  The argument has been made, even wrongly upheld in the Supreme Court, that children do not have constitutional rights.  Similarly, many, especially self-proclaimed conservatives, argue that non-citizens and especially illegal aliens don't have constitutional rights.  But the government only has the power granted in the Constitution so where would they have any power at all to have any interaction with an illegal alien?  The government has the power that is in the Constitution, period.  It doesn't matter where in the world or with anyone from anywhere in the world, the Constitution is the same.  Whether a person is child or adult, white or black, citizen or illegal alien, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Parents, on the other hand, are not limited by the Constitution and they are the ones who can choose whether or not to allow their children to have guns.

As for your other argument, about shooting recklessly, shooting is not protected by the Constitution.  There are rights, as you suggest, that are not included in the Constitution and the right to shoot your gun in defense of life, or perhaps for property, would fit in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Shooting recklessly, though, is not a right. 

And not exactly in response to your post but related to the topic, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments.  If those were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would always be a right, an inalienable right, and government cannot take that away.  They can punish a person and use force and threat of force to prevent exercise of the right but the right remains...


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 26, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> M'kay.  Thanks.


That's the problem with American Socialists.  In fact, it's what is wrong with every socialist since Stalin.  They all think they're smarter and they can make it work.  If we just do socialism right; if we just do it their way, it will work.

You know, like Bernie Sanders' way.  Those three homes of his could house a dozen good socialist families.  That's why he recently bought that lake house - to hold for the day when he can put in 4 families of illegal aliens.

And then there's Patrisse Khan-Cullors, self-described socialist founder of BLM who bought 4 homes while heading BLM.  I'm sure those were for housing a dozen or more black families after we start to do socialism right.

So, I'm sure, if we just do socialism right, if we just do it Bernie's, Patrisse's, and Rigby5's way, then it  would work.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> Every aspect of socialism in all countries, whether it involved production like Sweden, or is just some limited social service like public schools in the US, can never be authoritarian.
> Any time anything is authoritarian, it is not socialist, by definition and logical reality.
> Authoritarians who claim to be socialist simply are trying to fool people with propaganda, and that has to be resisted.
> ...



It is impossible to separate socialism from authoritarianism.  When the government enforces by force, by guns, and by the threat of imprisonment, the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work, then the government is authoritarian.  If the government does not enforce, by all those means specified, the payment of taxes then they would have absolutely no revenue or means of redistributing the wealth.  All that would remain would be charity - that help given to those who have less out of the kindness of the hearts of those who have more.

The only other way, many would claim, is full communism - where the state owns the means of production, therefore there is no tax.  The government takes the fruits of all labor and doles it out according to the government's opinion of need.  But that doesn't work without the authoritarianism, either.  When someone who works sees those who do not work getting equal share of the fruit, those who once worked would quit working.  Communism, of course, cannot stand that.  As the owner of the means of production, they own the people and must use force to make at least some of the people work else there would be no fruits to dole out.

Socialism must be authoritarian.  They are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 27, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If we had "due process", then not a single person would be imprisoned for federal drugs or weapons charges, which clearly are outside of any possible federal jurisdiction.


Why are there Congressional laws?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 27, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why are there Congressional laws?


What in the hell is a Congressional law?

Maybe this will help you:


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 30, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> None of these countries were ever even remotely socialist.
> The Germans sent Lenin into Russia to get them out of WWI, and he was just a German agent, who along with Stalin, were capitalists who killed all the socialists.
> These countries were centralists, serving a wealthy elite.  That is capitalism.
> That is the opposite of populist socialism that is supposed to be egalitarian.
> ...




I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.

The point of socialism is the government controls the means of production...that requires the power to force people to do what the government wants.....that leads to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.....putting power in the hands of a few people...who then refuse to give up that power.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.


You misunderstand.  Socialists need to merely learn how to _use_ Capitalism for _all_ of its capital worth in modern economic times.  Metadata for the general welfare!


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I'm not wrong about the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights defined a set of rights protected explicitly and then the 9th and 10th Amendments, part of the Bill of Rights, basically said what you said - that rights exist beyond those identified explicitly and that those were protected just as much as those listed.  That's why there was so much debate over whether or not there should even be such a thing.
> 
> Many felt that having a bill of rights would later be interpreted that things not listed would not be protected; government would claim that only those rights listed are protected.  And they were right; there are many who suggest the government can do something because it isn't explicitly protected in the Constitution.  On the other side, there were those who felt that if there was no bill of rights, the government would claim the authority to control things not intended for it to control.  And they were right.  Imagine gun rights today if there was no 2nd Amendment.  How many are claiming that your phone is not protected or your online activity?  So, both sides of that debate were right; both recognized that government would feed itself.
> 
> ...



I don't really disagree with most of that.
But all rights are subject to some restrictions, based on "police powers", which imply that if you infringe on the rights of others, then you can legally be restricted by judges/courts/governments/police.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I don't really disagree with most of that.
> But all rights are subject to some restrictions, based on "police powers", which imply that if you infringe on the rights of others, then you can legally be restricted by judges/courts/governments/police.


There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
Inherent limit:   You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
Restriction:   Background check for purchase of a firearm

Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> It is impossible to separate socialism from authoritarianism.  When the government enforces by force, by guns, and by the threat of imprisonment, the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work, then the government is authoritarian.  If the government does not enforce, by all those means specified, the payment of taxes then they would have absolutely no revenue or means of redistributing the wealth.  All that would remain would be charity - that help given to those who have less out of the kindness of the hearts of those who have more.
> 
> The only other way, many would claim, is full communism - where the state owns the means of production, therefore there is no tax.  The government takes the fruits of all labor and doles it out according to the government's opinion of need.  But that doesn't work without the authoritarianism, either.  When someone who works sees those who do not work getting equal share of the fruit, those who once worked would quit working.  Communism, of course, cannot stand that.  As the owner of the means of production, they own the people and must use force to make at least some of the people work else there would be no fruits to dole out.
> 
> Socialism must be authoritarian.  They are two sides of the same coin.



Socialism has NOTHING at all to do with redistribution of wealth, which is what you described, "the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work".
Whether or not a society decided to support those unable or unwilling to support themselves is a welfare aspect totally separate from socialism.
Socialism is just when some community decides to finance or regulate something collectively.
I have relatives in Kansas who got their community to collectively invest in and build grain elevators for the benefit of the entire community.
THAT is all socialism is, and it can NEVER be authoritarian.
If anything is authoritarian, that would automatically preclude it from being socialist, because then it would not be communal, collective, or collaborative.
It is capitalism that is for an elite minority, so then anything authoritarian pretty much has to be capitalism.
Authoritarian means by a minority and is capitalist, while socialism means by the majority.
And in the US, instead of investing in socialist enterprise, we implement socialism just by regulation.
Like laws against child labor is sufficient for socialism.
It does not require collective ownership.

And by the way, full communism does not mean the state owns everything, but that means of production involving more than a family, would  be collectively owned, not by the state, but by the people.  But communism is a theoretical that no one but families and religious communes have ever tried.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I usually enjoy your posts...but claiming the socialists are actually capitalists is just silly.
> 
> The point of socialism is the government controls the means of production...that requires the power to force people to do what the government wants.....that leads to authoritarianism/totalitarianism.....putting power in the hands of a few people...who then refuse to give up that power.



I never said socialists were actually capitalists, but that Stalin and Lenin were never socialists, but always extreme capitalists.
Lenin was a German agent paid to go into Russia and take them out of WWI, and Stalin was a bank robber hired by Lenin.

All decent societies enforce regulation and restrictions on business.
Like anti trust laws, child labor law, OSHA, etc.
But they are not authoritarian because they are based on the protection of individual rights, so are not authoritarian, totalitarian, abusive, etc.

Any society that did not control or restrict the means of production would eventually turn into an abusive authoritarian and totalitarian state because it is easy to enforce feudalism and slavery through economic means.  You just create company towns where those who do not submit are prevented from being able to earn a survivable means of support.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
> Inherent limit:   You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
> Restriction:   Background check for purchase of a firearm
> 
> Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.



Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.
But that a "restriction" is more of an arbitrary choice by government, with the intent to protect rights, but not necessarily always completely justified or effective?


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why are there Congressional laws?



Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.

Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.


Not so much.
"Free speech" has a specific definition.   The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech

Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.

Inherent limits never infringe upon a right, while restrictions sometimes do.


----------



## Rigby5 (Aug 31, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not so much.
> "Free speech" has a specific definition.   The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech
> 
> Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.
> ...



Ok, fine, but it seems likely those restrictions can be abused in order to deliberately infringe if the system is corrupt enough.
Any restriction has to have a test for reasonable need, based upon protecting the rights of others.
For example, when the bus company went on strike, people started parking in bus loading zones.
Police still wrote tickets, but they were all beaten in court because with the bus strike, there was no longer any need to prohibit parking there.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 31, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Ok, fine, but it seems likely those restrictions can be abused in order to deliberately infringe if the system is corrupt enough.


Always possible.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> There's a different between "restrictions' and "inherent limits"
> Inherent limit:   You do not have the right to commit murder with a firearm
> Restriction:   Background check for purchase of a firearm
> 
> Many people conflate the two, when they are different things.




Thank you....that is the best, concise explanation.....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Not so much.
> "Free speech" has a specific definition.   The definition of free speech are the inherent limits of same; anything that falls outside those limits - libel, slander, placing someone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger - is not free speech; as such, the laws against them are not restrictions on free speech
> 
> Restrictions on free speech are limitations placed on the exercise of the right within those limits - you have the right to assemble, but that assembly is subject to restrictions on the time place and manner of same, usually manifested as a permit when public property is involved.
> ...




I am going to keep that for later use...thanks....


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
> Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.
> 
> Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.


I only agree to the extent the general government of the Union is supposed to be fixing Standards for the Union.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Socialism has NOTHING at all to do with redistribution of wealth, which is what you described, "the payment of taxes required to give to those who will not work the rewards of those who did work".
> Whether or not a society decided to support those unable or unwilling to support themselves is a welfare aspect totally separate from socialism.
> Socialism is just when some community decides to finance or regulate something collectively.
> I have relatives in Kansas who got their community to collectively invest in and build grain elevators for the benefit of the entire community.
> ...


Of course socialism is redistribution of wealth.  It is taking my taxes to feed and clothe those who have done less to earn their own keep and so have less that what the government thinks they need.

Your idea of socialism is not at all socialism.  Rural communities have farm coops where members join together for, just as you say, building grain elevators or combining their buying power for greater price negotiations.  Those are all voluntary.  That's not socialism.  Socialism is when the government takes taxes or product from those who earn or create and redistribute it to those who the government believes have less or need more than they have.

Marx describes socialism as a system where you work for, essentially the state, whatever means of production, and get a certificate showing your labor.  Sort of like a pay check.  Then you go to the means of distribution (like Walmart?) and, after some deduction (taxes?) you get to draw according to the amount of labor you put in.  Hardly at all different from capitalism except that the government owns the production instead of the people who designed and built the systems.  Then, in Marx's view of socialism, the individual is "free" - free of the need to engage in specific personal labor just to survive.  If they'd rather create, or write, or engage in art, or any thing else, they're free to do that - sort of like with Obama Care you can choose not to work.

Marx describes lower communism as the people overturning the state and then the state owning the means of production.  In upper or later communism, he dreamed of the state dissolving as ownership of production devolves to the people with absolutely no one in authority over anyone else.  That would be the end of civilization and we'd have tribalism as seen in pre-Columbus Americas or in pre-European-influenced Africa - except that even those societies have tribal leaders.  But that is how life would look within a hundred years or so of Marx's view of upper stage communism.  But we'd never get to that stage because the government will never devolve itself by surrendering the means of production to the people.  It's never happened and it never will happen.

You're just one more idiotic dreamer thinking that if only we'd do it your way, communism would work.  You're clearly smarter than everyone who's ever tried it before and if we'd only let you run it we'd be so happy...


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Not sure I understand, but I think you are saying an "inherent limit" is when you want to prohibit a clear cut violation of someone's right.
> But that a "restriction" is more of an arbitrary choice by government, with the intent to protect rights, but not necessarily always completely justified or effective?


You totally misunderstand the point.  The right is to keep and bear arms.  There's no right to shoot someone except in self-defense or, debatably, defense of  property.  That you can't commit murder is not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 1, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Congressional legislation is supposed to remain within constitutional restrictions.
> Congress has vastly exceeded those legal limits, in my opinion.
> 
> Part of it is understandable since it is much easier and uniform if the feds pass laws instead of each state having to do it and ending up with 50 variations, but technically there is not way for the feds to have these powers without more amendments or constitutional conventions.


huh?

We don't have federal laws or a Congress to pass uniform laws so the states don't have to do it 50 times..... We have a Congress to pass laws within the authority of the federal powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.  Everything else intentionally and explicitly goes to the states for the very purpose that we absolutely SHOULD have 50 different variations.  Each state decides what to do for that state.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I only agree to the extent the general government of the Union is supposed to be fixing Standards for the Union.


There are no cases where the government is supposed to be fixing standards for the union.  The Federal Government has a set of responsibilities and authorities clearly defined in the Constitution.  They own those.  They don't set standards for the States in those; they write the laws.

For everything not clearly authorized to the Federal Government, the authority is retained by the States or the People - read the 10th Amendment.  The Federal government has no authority to interfere or set standards or anything else in anything not given to them in the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> huh?
> 
> We don't have federal laws or a Congress to pass uniform laws so the states don't have to do it 50 times..... We have a Congress to pass laws within the authority of the federal powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.  Everything else intentionally and explicitly goes to the states for the very purpose that we absolutely SHOULD have 50 different variations.  Each state decides what to do for that state.


What is your opinion of the Congressional power to fix Standards for the Union?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> There are no cases where the government is supposed to be fixing standards for the union.  The Federal Government has a set of responsibilities and authorities clearly defined in the Constitution.  They own those.  They don't set standards for the States in those; they write the laws.
> 
> For everything not clearly authorized to the Federal Government, the authority is retained by the States or the People - read the 10th Amendment.  The Federal government has no authority to interfere or set standards or anything else in anything not given to them in the Constitution.


_To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;_


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> ...


If rogue troops tried to violate the 3rd Amendment, wouldn't it be self defense to protect your home?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 1, 2021)

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

*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.*

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> What is your opinion of the Congressional power to fix Standards for the Union?


My opinion is that the Congress has the power given to it explicitly in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8.  Can you show me there the power to fix standards for the Union?


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;_


Weights and Measures.... Not standard laws across the 50 states.  They can tell us to use the English foot-pound system or they can switch us to Metric.. if they dare.  They cannot create standards for laws across the states.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> ...


Please show any reference to support the stupid idea that the Founders intended that the Supreme Court was to determine the meaning of the Constitution.  Show it in law, in Supreme Court opinion, in any scholarly paper of the time.

The Constitution exists as it was written and amended, period.  To suggest that it exists only in case law is to suggest that the Constitution was never more than a suggestion to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court are our rulers and, ultimately, the source of all power and authority, rights, and privilege, within the United States.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> ...


Because of the necessity of a militia, the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed, as a safe guard against the militia, should it go rogue.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.
> 
> ...


No where in Article 3 does it say that the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No where in Article 3 does it say that the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution.



Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.

But C Clayton Jones is entirely wrong when he wrote:
{...
The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the _Heller _Court.
...}

Since the greatest threat to any individual is from corrupt authoritarian government, of course the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the right of insurrection.  The Founders had just fought a revolution over that, and were not about to throw it all away by allowing a new dictatorship enslave them.
There can be no other possible purpose to the 2nd amendment.
Those claiming it is to ensure there is an organized militia like the National Guard, make no sense at all, because you don't need to add an amendment in the Bill of Rights to prevent the federal government from disarming is own National Guard.

As for Heller:
{...
_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
...}




__





						District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Obviously since the single biggest individual need for self defense weapons comes from the threat of an authoritarian government, Heller does defend "insurrectionist dogma".


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Sep 3, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.
> 
> But C Clayton Jones is entirely wrong when he wrote:
> {...
> ...


Reviewing legislation, to see if it's contrary to the Constitution, is the purpose of the courts.

Defending one's home against a rogue government agency, or a faction of the military isn't insurrection.  Fighting against tyranny isn't insurrection. It's self defense.  Re-visit the example I used involving violation of the 3rd Amendment.  The only people talking about insurrection are the clowns on the Left.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Reviewing legislation, to see if it's contrary to the Constitution, is the purpose of the courts.
> 
> Defending one's home against a rogue government agency, or a faction of the military isn't insurrection.  Fighting against tyranny isn't insurrection. It's self defense.  Re-visit the example I used involving violation of the 3rd Amendment.  The only people talking about insurrection are the clowns on the Left.



{...
*Article Three* of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.

Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary's power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that federal judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of _Marbury v. Madison_.

Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.
...}


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 3, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.



No it's not.  They review the law to see if it is constitutional and if the application is constitutional.  They, of course, have their opinions of what the Constitution means but determining the meaning is not the objective.  The objective is to determine if the law in the case they're considering is constitutional and/or if the application of the law in the case is constitutional.  Considering the Constitution in their deliberations is in the Constitution.  

What most people ignore or forget or never knew is that the Court has abdicated half of it's job, taking only cases with a constitutional question even though the Constitution requires that they function as the final court of appeal in any case.  Our court system has taken the view that only constitutional violations warrant appeal but that was not the intention of the Founders.

Anyway, bottom line is that the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 3, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> {...
> *Article Three* of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.
> 
> Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three's Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge's salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.
> ...



I was really impressed with your views and writing on the Constitution until I realized that you Bidened that post.  From some of the built-in hyperlinks in the Bidened text, I assume you Bidened it from Wikipedia.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> No it's not.  They review the law to see if it is constitutional and if the application is constitutional.  They, of course, have their opinions of what the Constitution means but determining the meaning is not the objective.  The objective is to determine if the law in the case they're considering is constitutional and/or if the application of the law in the case is constitutional.  Considering the Constitution in their deliberations is in the Constitution.
> 
> What most people ignore or forget or never knew is that the Court has abdicated half of it's job, taking only cases with a constitutional question even though the Constitution requires that they function as the final court of appeal in any case.  Our court system has taken the view that only constitutional violations warrant appeal but that was not the intention of the Founders.
> 
> Anyway, bottom line is that the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution.



Wrong.
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution, 
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 3, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I was really impressed with your views and writing on the Constitution until I realized that you Bidened that post.  From some of the built-in hyperlinks in the Bidened text, I assume you Bidened it from Wikipedia.



That is what the brackets and ellipsis are for, to indicate a quoted section from a larger piece.
Wasn't that obvious?
Did you want me to include the link as well?


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is what the brackets and ellipsis are for, to indicate a quoted section from a larger piece.
> Wasn't that obvious?
> Did you want me to include the link as well?


Show me in any English writing style guide where brackets and ellipses are shown as a way to indicate a quote.   And even if they were, which they are not, there's still no credit given.  You Bidened it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 4, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."
> 
> You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."
> ...



Your English is very bad today or, you're reverting to the inborn, inbred, nature of all leftists and lying - and I lean toward the latter.

Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, means interpreting the Constitution.  How can you quote your own statement and claim you didn't say it.  You clearly did say the Courts job is to interpret the Constitution.  You said it outright and that's what you meant.  Now you can't back it up  and, in typical leftist fashion, you won't just admit you were wrong and move on so you deny that which you said says that which you said.

What you did not say is that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law against what the Constitution says or means.  That is a lie.

Just as your plagiarism in another post is completely Biden-like, this denial and claiming you didn't say what you did say, and saying you did say that which you did not say, is just more Biden-like behavior.  You Bidened this one, as well.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 4, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Show me in any English writing style guide where brackets and ellipses are shown as a way to indicate a quote.   And even if they were, which they are not, there's still no credit given.  You Bidened it.



Ellipsis always mean there is more, which implies it is part of a larger piece.  There would be no reason to do that with one's own writing unless it was an obvious list that was getting redundant, similar to how one uses "etc.".
Anything setting off a section, whether parenthesis, brackets, braces, etc. always indicates something.
And it should be obvious from the article and section headings that this was from a larger government legal document.

But when you say, "You Bidened it", that means nothing to me.
I have never heard of Biden being known for plagiarization.  But is that what you mean?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 4, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Your English is very bad today or, you're reverting to the inborn, inbred, nature of all leftists and lying - and I lean toward the latter.
> 
> Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, means interpreting the Constitution.  How can you quote your own statement and claim you didn't say it.  You clearly did say the Courts job is to interpret the Constitution.  You said it outright and that's what you meant.  Now you can't back it up  and, in typical leftist fashion, you won't just admit you were wrong and move on so you deny that which you said says that which you said.
> 
> ...



Ok, I accidentally left out the word "just".  
Here is exactly what I wrote originally.

{... 
I said, "Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do."

You said, "the Supreme Court's job is not to interpret the Constitution, it's to judge the case and the applicable laws against the Constitution."

And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution,
I said the role of all judiciary is to interpret law, which is what judging a case and applicable laws, against the Constitution means.
...}

You clearly implied that I said the job of the Supreme Court was to just interpret the Constitution.
And I did not.
I said that the job of all courts was to interpret all law.
I never limited it to just the SCOTUS, or to just the Constitution.

However, I also failed to mention the judiciary also evaluates testimony and fact as well as law.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Ellipsis always mean there is more, which implies it is part of a larger piece.  There would be no reason to do that with one's own writing unless it was an obvious list that was getting redundant, similar to how one uses "etc.".
> Anything setting off a section, whether parenthesis, brackets, braces, etc. always indicates something.
> And it should be obvious from the article and section headings that this was from a larger government legal document.
> 
> ...


You can make up your own language any time you want.  Communicating with others using your homemade language will be pretty difficult.

Biden's a serial plagiarizer.   You did what Biden did.  There's no reason to argue about it or defend it; just credit your source when you use someone else's work.  It's actually a site rule.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Ok, I accidentally left out the word "just".
> Here is exactly what I wrote originally.
> 
> {...
> ...


You're lying again.  I'm disappointed.  There was a time when I respected your opinion even when it differed from mine because you used reason.  Now you're just lying.  You explicitly and exactly stated that it is the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and now you deny those words even though what''s said on the Internet stays on the Internet.  And it's on the Internet.  You quote the words you said and say you didn't say what those words say. 

You just have a serious problem with admitting you made a mistake.  You Biden that, too.  He denies the things he is on video recording saying.  It must be something with the genetic defect that makes someone a leftist, that makes them want to take from those who produce to get handouts for themselves and others, that also makes them unable to admit when they are wrong.  It likely has to do with the fact that honesty would make them admit the wrong in their social and political views and that would destroy all that they claim to be.  It kind of shows that you know what you'd be without your facade.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:  Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.        

Rigby5 said:  And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You can make up your own language any time you want.  Communicating with others using your homemade language will be pretty difficult.
> 
> Biden's a serial plagiarizer.   You did what Biden did.  There's no reason to argue about it or defend it; just credit your source when you use someone else's work.  It's actually a site rule.



My POINT was asking what you think would be better for delineating a section of a larger quote?

I still think my quote was obvious since it had headings in it like "Article 3" and "Section 1".
Nor do I think I needed to add a link since it was law someone else already linked.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You're lying again.  I'm disappointed.  There was a time when I respected your opinion even when it differed from mine because you used reason.  Now you're just lying.  You explicitly and exactly stated that it is the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution and now you deny those words even though what''s said on the Internet stays on the Internet.  And it's on the Internet.  You quote the words you said and say you didn't say what those words say.
> 
> You just have a serious problem with admitting you made a mistake.  You Biden that, too.  He denies the things he is on video recording saying.  It must be something with the genetic defect that makes someone a leftist, that makes them want to take from those who produce to get handouts for themselves and others, that also makes them unable to admit when they are wrong.  It likely has to do with the fact that honesty would make them admit the wrong in their social and political views and that would destroy all that they claim to be.  It kind of shows that you know what you'd be without your facade.



You seem to not pick up on nuance?
If the ONLY job of the SCOTUS, to interpret the Constitution, and nothing else?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> Rigby5 said:  Actually interpreting law, including the Constitution is all the courts are supposed to do.
> 
> Rigby5 said:  And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was to interpret the Constitution



What I obviously mean was, "And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was JUST to interpret the Constitution."


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You seem to not pick up on nuance?
> If the ONLY job of the SCOTUS, to interpret the Constitution, and nothing else?


You're the one who said it was nothing else.  You seem to not pick up on facts.  It is not the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> What I obviously mean was, "And clearly I did not say the SCOTUS job was JUST to interpret the Constitution."


Once again, you twist your own words to cover up your error and you lie like a Biden.

It's not that you left out the word "just", implying that you meant that interpreting the Constitution was just one part of what they do.  You said, explicitly, it is "all" they are supposed to do.  There was no oversight, no grammatical error, no forgotten words or typographical errors.  You said that interpreting the Constitution is ALL they're supposed to do.

A lot of folks have a problem admitting their mistakes.  Many on Internet forums just ignore the corrections and don't respond because they are embarrassed.  I'm OK with that; being wrong can be embarrassing.  Many, though, will admit their error, sometimes with just a like or a "Good point" reply to the one who taught them what they didn't know.  There are a few, though, Joe Biden and you included, who simply lie to cover up the mistake and refuse to admit what's right there in the public record, quoting the public record and saying it doesn't say what it says or that the words used don't mean the thing they mean.  You and Biden... Neither of you will ever learn anything, you will never be smarter, or should I say less ignorant, than you are today because you can never admit to being wrong.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 6, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> You're the one who said it was nothing else.  You seem to not pick up on facts.  It is not the job of the Courts to interpret the Constitution.



Of course it is the job of the federal courts to interpret the constitution, but that is not their only job.


----------



## woodwork201 (Sep 6, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Of course it is the job of the federal courts to interpret the constitution, but that is not their only job.


Well, I guess this is your way of admitting you were wrong when you said that it was their only job.

In any case, can you tell where in the Constitution they get that authority?


----------

