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

[JakeStarkey]

If the Bundys tried it again, there will be bloodshed and the militia scattered as ashes before the wind.

 

[KeiserC]

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.
`

Of course you do... these "Constitutional experts" are more than adept at pouring a honey potion in one's ear while stripping their fundamental rights right out from under them...while sanctimoniously using the words like 'living' & 'breathing' ..euphemisms for (self serving procurement).... Nahh, "experts" NOT required... tis the beauty and simplicity of our Constitution, for us the people... by us the people (founders)

Harkens back to the Catholic Church... The Priest (a mere man of an institution) being built up to the likes of a quasi Deity.... why...? to wield tremendous power of the plebeian masses...

No thanks... I'll do without the "experts"... & try most of them for the facilitation of treason... (ok I'm being facetious there...lol)

 

[Lakhota]

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

Constitution, NO. 2nd Amendment, YES.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Useful Idiot

 

[Uncensored2008]

`
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.
`

Well, if truth be told you prefer "stake through it's heart" on the Constitution.

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...???

You do grasp that the 2nd Amendment protects one of our most important civil rights, that of self-defense?

Perhaps you are taking the opposite position than that of the ones advocating the surrender of basic liberty?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Constitution, NO. 2nd Amendment, YES.

The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, as are the other rights in the BoR that you seek to crush, such as the freedom of speech and religion, and the right to assemble

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.
`

Of course you do... these "Constitutional experts" are more than adept at pouring a honey potion in one's ear while stripping their fundamental rights right out from under them...while sanctimoniously using the words like 'living' & 'breathing' ..euphemisms for (self serving procurement).... Nahh, "experts" NOT required... tis the beauty and simplicity of our Constitution, for us the people... by us the people (founders)

Harkens back to the Catholic Church... The Priest (a mere man of an institution) being built up to the likes of a quasi Deity.... why...? to wield tremendous power of the plebeian masses...

No thanks... I'll do without the "experts"... & try most of them for the facilitation of treason... (ok I'm being facetious there...lol)

Doesn't matter what you think or what you do, KeiserC. SCOTUS and the federal judiciary will continue to do their job as they see fit. If you don't like it, oh well.

 

[Windparadox]

Well, if truth be told you prefer "stake through it's heart" on the Constitution.

Your truth. All I said is that I prefer one method over another. Both are viable. I'm not influenced by the extreme bias and prejudice of religion or political ideologies.
`

 

[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.
`

Well, if truth be told you prefer "stake through it's heart" on the Constitution.

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...???

You do grasp that the 2nd Amendment protects one of our most important civil rights, that of self-defense?

Perhaps you are taking the opposite position than that of the ones advocating the surrender of basic liberty?

Obviously your going off 'half cocked' here with limited comprehension of the OP... If you read more carefully you would see that questioning for the facilitation of dialogue... is not necessarily the same as personally questioning those same tenets.

To simplify it for you... I believe that the 2nd Amend. is the cornerstone, the fundamental basis upon which all our personal freedoms are undergirded and stem from...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 2dA is not that. It merely was the foundation for the militia, and has turned into a hobby horse for the crazy far right who can't stand a transformation is the country is taking place despite the Alt Right et al.

 

[KeiserC]

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.
`

Of course you do... these "Constitutional experts" are more than adept at pouring a honey potion in one's ear while stripping their fundamental rights right out from under them...while sanctimoniously using the words like 'living' & 'breathing' ..euphemisms for (self serving procurement).... Nahh, "experts" NOT required... tis the beauty and simplicity of our Constitution, for us the people... by us the people (founders)

Harkens back to the Catholic Church... The Priest (a mere man of an institution) being built up to the likes of a quasi Deity.... why...? to wield tremendous power of the plebeian masses...

No thanks... I'll do without the "experts"... & try most of them for the facilitation of treason... (ok I'm being facetious there...lol)

Doesn't matter what you think or what you do, KeiserC. SCOTUS and the federal judiciary will continue to do their job as they see fit. If you don't like it, oh well.

Yeh... carte blanche..."the federal judiciary will continue to do their job as they see fit" Your F'n kidding I hope... Might as well suck their .... & then grab your ankles for them.... Do you think that they are GODS? infallible, beyond reproach....not in very close danger of being dragged off in chains if they overtly cross a line... You and people like you scare me... Another reason for the 2nd Amendment!!!! protection from you and your ilk.

Read Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which states that judges of the Supreme Court shall hold their offices "during good Behavior".

O... and yes we did already fight the 'War of Independence' aka Revolutionary War...perhaps you didn't get the memo...

 

[flacaltenn]

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 'an antiquated notion'? We do 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...

You got to be kidding right? The nation's Domestic Spy system is being abused and weaponized on political opponents. You have MASSIVE societal division like we've never seen. 30% of Dem partisans are STILL fighting the election results like abandoned WW2 Jap soldiers. And the Media basically destroyed itself SUPPORTING the whole charade of the Steele dossier and "Russian collusion"..

And you think things are SOOOO peaceful and pastoral that we are BEYOND protecting ourselves from instability or govt abuse??

Hang around USMB for awhile and SEE how "evolved" all this is. We're headed for the hole in the crapper right now..

lol... that's kind of the whole point of my query. You forgot to mention that we have 10's of millions here illegally (many felons, some terrorists) yet we should be told how many rounds is "appropriate" for defending ourselves/families...! We have a decades long slide into Gov. expansion and erosion of individual freedoms...

Good response... very much am on board with it!

Ignorant nonsense.

In fact, over the last 50 years, we’ve seen a comprehensive expansion of rights and protected liberties – minorities’ right to vote, the privacy rights of women, the due process rights of immigrants, and the equal protection rights of gay Americans have been acknowledged and safeguarded from abuse by the states.

The notion that our rights have been ‘eroded’ is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Helps your message to ignore the MAJOR abuses that have been visited upon us. The awful concept of Domestic Spying has been revived after nearly 35 years of being halted due to Civil Liberty abuses in the 60s and 70s. Today, the govt collects almost every communication, many of your bank transactions that you make. They already abuse that system for common criminal cases.. Ask the ACLU.. NOW they seem to have weaponized that system as a political baseball bat to take to your election opposition..

The MASSIVE abuses of Asset Forfeiture reached a new pinnacle in the War on Drugs. The abuse of eminent domain has been institutionalized by local govts.

Nuisance suits used by the minions of morons in the Fed bureaucracy are used to forced landowners to devalue and give up on their homesteads and farms for "environmental protection".. A seasonal pond in your pasture can lead to $MILLIONS in fines and loss of use without a LOT of legal recourse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They libertarians have had decades to organize and still are going nowhere.

 

[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.

Useful Idiot

He is useful?

 

[Clementine]

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...?

No country or people will ever be above that. Human nature remains the same regardless of progress. Tyranny is alive and well and always will be. Our forefathers knew this and created the constitution to give people the power to fight against it by any means necessary.

Yes, we should always have the capability to keep government in line. The biggest change over the years is the idea of the people being in charge. It's now the big government in charge and intelligent people fear it.

Fearing government is, by definition, tyranny. The government should respect and fear the people. That is freedom.

The only way to maintain freedom is allowing the people to maintain control. The only way for people to remain in charge is to have the ability to defend ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes government.

The leftists have brainwashed much of our youth into believing that constitutionalists are the evil ones and that nanny government is the only benevolent force in this country. Armed people who can protect themselves are the enemy of tyranny. It's no wonder that the wannabe dictators are trying desperately to eliminate the power held by the people. They want government to have full power and the ability to control every person.

If people become disarmed, history will repeat itself. Every country who has disarmed it's citizens have murdered millions of their citizens. Young students are clearly not being taught accurate history in many schools.

I posted an article on FB about socialism/communism and why it always ends in disaster. One college student responded that young people now don't support that kind of socialism but that they want a new kind of liberal socialism, which she claimed was totally different. She couldn't tell me what the differences were or even explain what socialism was. She just said that liberals now want a good socialism that shows they care about people. Clueless little airhead has no clue, and a lot of her friends agree with her. Scary to see how dumbed down some have become. Is there any hope for us with indoctrinated youth sounding like brainless robots?

I'm sick of liberals saying that when the 2nd amendment was written, all they had were muskets. When the 1st amendment was written, all we had was pony express and very few ways to get news to people. Now we have "news" shows reaching millions, talk shows trying to shape opinions, the internet, magazines, and radio and the average person has no idea how to find out which are offering facts. If the 1st amendment stands despite these things not existing yet then the 2nd amendment stands.

Of course, the founders knew there would be significant progress in all areas, The basic premise remains the same. Back then, muskets and such were all anyone, including the military had. The intention was that the people would have equal power.

 

[hunarcy]

`
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.

Ah, so you cherry picked Justice Kennedy's opinion because it fits your agenda...so, you're just as guilty as the frightened reactionaries. Thanks.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Ah, the laughing face...the only retort of those who have no rebuttal to the truth.

 

[hunarcy]

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.

Awww, couldn't explain how a bunch of goat herders could stand up to the military that you claim could vanquish Americans in a week? Yawn.

 

[Windparadox]

Ah, so you cherry picked Justice Kennedy's opinion because it fits your agenda...so, you're just as guilty as the frightened reactionaries. Thanks.

...and you chose to reject it because it fits your agenda.
`

 

[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...?

No country or people will ever be above that. Human nature remains the same regardless of progress. Tyranny is alive and well and always will be. Our forefathers knew this and created the constitution to give people the power to fight against it by any means necessary.

Yes, we should always have the capability to keep government in line. The biggest change over the years is the idea of the people being in charge. It's now the big government in charge and intelligent people fear it.

Fearing government is, by definition, tyranny. The government should respect and fear the people. That is freedom.

The only way to maintain freedom is allowing the people to maintain control. The only way for people to remain in charge is to have the ability to defend ourselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes government.

The leftists have brainwashed much of our youth into believing that constitutionalists are the evil ones and that nanny government is the only benevolent force in this country. Armed people who can protect themselves are the enemy of tyranny. It's no wonder that the wannabe dictators are trying desperately to eliminate the power held by the people. They want government to have full power and the ability to control every person.

If people become disarmed, history will repeat itself. Every country who has disarmed it's citizens have murdered millions of their citizens. Young students are clearly not being taught accurate history in many schools.

I posted an article on FB about socialism/communism and why it always ends in disaster. One college student responded that young people now don't support that kind of socialism but that they want a new kind of liberal socialism, which she claimed was totally different. She couldn't tell me what the differences were or even explain what socialism was. She just said that liberals now want a good socialism that shows they care about people. Clueless little airhead has no clue, and a lot of her friends agree with her. Scary to see how dumbed down some have become. Is there any hope for us with indoctrinated youth sounding like brainless robots?

Thanks for a great post & bringing the IQ quotient of this post up a level... We should all thank you for that!