Are we so Societally Evolved as to render the Constitiution (2nd Amend.) Antiquated...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

‘Originalism’ is the purview of frightened reactionaries.

 

[KeiserC]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

‘Originalism’ is the purview of frightened reactionaries.

Ok, not sure that works... did you mean 'is the scope of' or 'within the scope of' ... whatever...

So,

'judicial activism' "is the purview of ?_____ _____?"

fill in the blank as you're on a BSing roll here... lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

So, you'd rather ignore what the Founders said in favor of what you wish it said?

…the purview of frightened reactionaries.

The Founders did not speak with one voice, they were not of one mind, and they often changed their positions on the issues of the day.

It was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the people be subject solely to the rule of law, that judges and justices would decide the matters before them in concert with settled case law and precedent, consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Consequently, ‘originalism’ is at odds with the Framers’ intent.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

 

[westwall]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

‘Originalism’ is the purview of frightened reactionaries.

Originalism is the foundation of the COTUS, and why we are still the freest country on the planet despite decades of progressive efforts to turn this country into a dictatorship.

 

[Avatar4321]

The 2nd Amendment was "antiquated" on the day it was written.

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment. The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it. It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.

It's like an Etch A Sketch.

I am sure you believe that...but you are wrong.

He is used to being wrong

 

[IsaacNewton]

The days of 'the people' using rifles to fight their own army ended over a hundred years ago. In the age of the musket the people could own, generally, equal arms to what any government could own except maybe warships. That relative equity between forces of the people and the government ended around the time the Gatling Gun came into existence. The advent of modern artillery and then aircraft in the early 20th century forever ended any parity that may have been attainable by 'the people'.

If the American people have to fight their own army it would last a week and we'd lose on all counts. Even millions of kitted and fully auto AK47's or AR15's are going to be nothing more than a nuisance for our modern army. And since the whole argument for the 2nd amendment is so 'the people' can keep themselves free by arms is more than a century obsolete it now is nothing more than the Queen of England. No real power and it is more just a quaint old tradition that people feel all fuzzy about.

And don't get me wrong, I don't like that we can no longer defend ourselves from tyranny here. But reality is what it is. And all you nibs who think you're going to be a 'hero' and 'save the nation' go back to bed. The myth you live and breath is meaningless in physical reality. When a company of M1 Abrams supported by attack helicopters and jets come rolling down the road to your town and you have a line of 100,000 guys with full auto machine guns guess who loses. So don't post any stupid 'well these people did this 50 years ago'. We aren't talking about some other bullshit, we're talking about American people fighting their own army, marines, navy, and air force.

Should people still have rifles for hunting and pistols for self protection, yes. But this nonsense about 'pertectin freedom' is mental archeology. That myth ended a hundred years ago.

Never heard of Iraq, huh? How long have we been in Afghanistan?

Why not just go full tinfoil, "you never heard about Alderan huh? The rebels kicked the Empire's ass with just a ragtag bunch of scruffy nerfherders!"

You funny Petersaun.

 

[Avatar4321]

Has human nature changed? Have evil men stopped assaulting innocent people? Have governments stopped being corrupt? Have tyrants all been eliminated?

No?

Then no we still have a right to defend ourselves and a right to the tools we need to do so

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

Ask the brits.

They gave up their rights to own guns and be armed. It was done incrementally first with a ban on " assault rifles " and then handguns and finally any and all guns.

Now the UK has become a draconian tyrannical state where people are being imprisoned for face book posts and thought crime.



Despotism always follows disarmament and tyrannical control over people is always the only end of gun control.

The second is no more antiquated than the other amendments.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not the capricious ‘will of the people,’ as men are incapable of ruling justly.

The UK is a democracy, where the people decide what the law is, and where the people are consequently subject to ‘majority rule’ – to the ignorance, fear, and stupidity of he people; hence the UK’s inane ‘hate crime’ laws, where those who engage in hate speech are in jeopardy of punitive measures by the state.

That’s not the case in our Constitutional Republic, where hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections.

Indeed, our rights and liberties are protected not by guns but by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, their case law, and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Has human nature changed? Have evil men stopped assaulting innocent people? Have governments stopped being corrupt? Have tyrants all been eliminated?

No?

Then no we still have a right to defend ourselves and a right to the tools we need to do so

And those tools are the Constitution and its case law.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

`
As far as constitutional interpretations, I favor the "living" as opposed to the "original intent" method. The former is fluid and dynamic while the latter is stagnant and ridged.
`

So what you're saying is that the government has a right to limit freedom of speech and religion ? The original intent was to limit government powers.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Do you think, had the 2nd amendment never been added, would we be free today?

I'd they repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow, so you think America would be the same country in 10 years?

Would our government be supportive of individualism, creativity, and the freedom to do what you want, and be who you want?

Curious to see how people view our government. Do you see them as generally trying to help the American people, or do you see them as a tyrannical body that, if not for the deterrence of 300 million guns, would be trying to erode our freedoms and try to put us into a dictatorship?

 

[Windparadox]

So what you're saying is that the government has a right to limit freedom of speech and religion ? The original intent was to limit government powers.

Huh? What the sam hill are you talking about? The argument on constitutional interpretation has been going on between legal scholars for well over a century. I favor the living constitution method over original intent.
`

 

[KeiserC]

Do you think, had the 2nd amendment never been added, would we be free today?

I'd they repealed the 2nd amendment tomorrow, so you think America would be the same country in 10 years?

Would our government be supportive of individualism, creativity, and the freedom to do what you want, and be who you want?

Curious to see how people view our government. Do you see them as generally trying to help the American people, or do you see them as a tyrannical body that, if not for the deterrence of 300 million guns, would be trying to erode our freedoms and try to put us into a dictatorship?

good point... it's the cornerstone, the fundamental basis undergirding all of our (bloodily fought for) freedoms! I agree...

 

[KeiserC]

So what you're saying is that the government has a right to limit freedom of speech and religion ? The original intent was to limit government powers.

Huh? What the sam hill are you talking about? The argument on constitutional interpretation has been going on between legal scholars for well over a century. I favor the living constitution method over original intent.
`

Great... the balance of our Nation lies in circumstantial & subjective 'preference'.... lol

 

[Avatar4321]

Has human nature changed? Have evil men stopped assaulting innocent people? Have governments stopped being corrupt? Have tyrants all been eliminated?

No?

Then no we still have a right to defend ourselves and a right to the tools we need to do so

And those tools are the Constitution and its case law.

Funny how our Founders didn't use the constitution and caselaw to fight the British

 

[KeiserC]

Has human nature changed? Have evil men stopped assaulting innocent people? Have governments stopped being corrupt? Have tyrants all been eliminated?

No?

Then no we still have a right to defend ourselves and a right to the tools we need to do so

And those tools are the Constitution and its case law.

Funny how our Founders didn't use the constitution and caselaw to fight the British

Apparently the British weren't like the liberal 'progressives' we have today... so enlightened & all....

 

[Uncensored2008]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

So, the mark of "evolution" is to do away with civil rights?

Ah yes, your kind have left many markers of how "evolved" you are.

 

[KeiserC]

A hi-cap. magazine ban has been an issue for decades and it underscores the essential point of contention between the camps of the 'gun rights' & 'anti's'... Does it boil down to the fundamental point of the 2nd Amendment... a check, by 'the people', against tyranny?

Are we so evolved as a Society & Nation that this notion of a check against tyranny... is 'foolish' and a silly relic...? We do (currently) see dozens and dozens of Countries around the world where there is rampant oppression by dictatorships, quasi governments, political parties, royal families... over the freedoms and "inalienable rights" of their people... So are we 'above all that', now well into our 3rd century as a Nation?

House Democrats Push Ban on 'High Capacity' Magazines and 205 Different Firearms

Magazine capacity is perhaps the clearest tangible measure of where our Nation stands on this... After all, what use is an "assault rifle" if it can only be used with 'tiny' capacity mags... Is having an armed citizenry... 'armed commensurately' with that of the 'civilian' authority policing them, a bygone notion? Do our remaining 90's something elder's notions of the Wiemar Republic, no longer apply here...?

So, the mark of "evolution" is to do away with civil rights?

Ah yes, your kind have left many markers of how "evolved" you are.

I don't follow... there are almost no assertions made in the OP... a bunch of queries... could you explain? or are you confused? didn't actually read the OP? What are these civil rights that I'm a proponent of giving up...???

 

[Windparadox]

Great... the balance of our Nation lies in circumstantial & subjective 'preference'.... lol

I have infinitely more trust in what professional and trained jurists say then any of the millions of so-called online constitutional experts.
`

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the OP means "antiquated" in that the citizenry can no longer oppose successfully with weapons a totalitarian government, yes, that is so.

Um. No it isn’t. Bundy Ranch for proof.

Yup, "success" is measured only half are in jail and none are dead, in your world.