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

[hunarcy]

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.
`

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

 

[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.

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.

And you join the list.

 

[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.

And you join the list.

View attachment 179822

No thank you. I don't need a picture of you.

 

[OKTexas]

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...?

Actually, society has devolved so badly in the last 45 years or so that the 2nd is more important than ever. FL proved more than ever that you can't count on government to keep you safe.


.

 

[bripat9643]

`
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.

Every rational intelligent American is frieghtened of your view of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Case law is 90% bullshit. It's a series of poorly argued excuses for expanding government power. How could any rational human interpret "shall not be abridge" to mean that they can be abridged?

 

[bripat9643]

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....

We had far more freedom under King George III than we do now.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Ammon Bundy is not in jail. All charges dismissed with prejudice. Why? The Government lied and cheated. Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

So with literally two exceptions everyone who went to prison plead guilty. Those who pled not guilty went home with two exceptions. So what does that tell you?

First the Government was unwilling to end up playing the part of Custer at the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, and two, they really were out to screw the Bundy’s. Now as for me I think the Bundy’s are assholes. But even assholes have rights. Which brings us back to you. How are you doing?

 

[SavannahMann]

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

Unlikely. Let’s talk numbers. There are including Federal, State, County, and City, about three million cops total in the nation. There are probably that many Remington branded AR-15’s not to mention the dozen other makers.

How many cops would die? How many would face Veterans with training and experience more than equal to that of the cops?

 

[OKTexas]

`
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 adhering to the written law. Not pretending it doesn't say what it says.


.

 

[Windparadox]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

I've been hearing that same excuse (figuratively speaking) since Roe v Wade. At issue now is the 2nd Amendment. Like with abortion, it's a highly volatile and emotional topic. Those who defend it are solidly intransigent about it which negates any pragmatic discussion on it. SCOTUS really doesn't want to get involved in it which leaves it still up for discussion, if possible. I don't believe 2A is absolute from a legal perspective. It has limitations that should be explored and tested.
`

 

[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.

Ammon Bundy is not in jail. All charges dismissed with prejudice. Why? The Government lied and cheated. Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

So with literally two exceptions everyone who went to prison plead guilty. Those who pled not guilty went home with two exceptions. So what does that tell you?

First the Government was unwilling to end up playing the part of Custer at the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, and two, they really were out to screw the Bundy’s. Now as for me I think the Bundy’s are assholes. But even assholes have rights. Which brings us back to you. How are you doing?

How many are in jail?

You can deny it all you want: it was not a success.

Yes, they are assholes, which they have in common with many others on the alt right.

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

SavannahMan: Unlikely. Let’s talk numbers. There are including Federal, State, County, and City, about three million cops total in the nation. There are probably that many Remington branded AR-15’s not to mention the dozen other makers.

How many cops would die? How many would face Veterans with training and experience more than equal to that of the cops?

You live in a tin foil world. Almost no veterans are going to join a rebellion against the country and constitution.

The neighbors would put the rebels against the wall in the back yard and leave them where they fell, before the LEO or the military ever showed up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SavannahMan=Ammon Bundy is not in jail. All charges dismissed with prejudice. Why? The Government lied and cheated. Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

So with literally two exceptions everyone who went to prison plead guilty. Those who pled not guilty went home with two exceptions. So what does that tell you?

First the Government was unwilling to end up playing the part of Custer at the re-enactment of the Little Bighorn, and two, they really were out to screw the Bundy’s. Now as for me I think the Bundy’s are assholes. But even assholes have rights. Which brings us back to you. How are you doing?

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

Unlikely. Let’s talk numbers. There are including Federal, State, County, and City, about three million cops total in the nation. There are probably that many Remington branded AR-15’s not to mention the dozen other makers.

How many cops would die? How many would face Veterans with training and experience more than equal to that of the cops?

You live in a tin foil world. Almost no veterans are going to join a rebellion against the country and constitution.

The neighbors would put the rebels against the wall in the back yard and leave them where they fell, before the LEO or the military ever showed up.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

 

[impuretrash]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

`
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 founders gave the right to the judiciary to interpret the constitution pursuant to their respective times.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

We did. We have had school shootings for almost 170 years.

 

[impuretrash]

A "societally evolved" nation wouldn't have school shootings.

There's always a reluctant group that lags behind. They're called conservatives.

If conservatives are to blame, then why didn't we have school shootings back when America was more conservative?

We did. We have had school shootings for almost 170 years.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Windparadox]

LOL! I didn't rejected it. I merely pointed out he was basing his opinion on one person's point of view because he agreed with it. When you "interpret" the Constitution as "living document" you risk turning it to something that was NOT intended. Now, I realize there must be flexibility to deal with changing times, but that's not the same as twisting it into something new.

You mean, something you don't agree with.
`
`

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no indication that 'original intent' was stagnant language and thought.

Our right to keep and bar arms is inalienable and self evident, its not granted by the 2nd. According to Jefferson and other prominent thinkers of his time, such statements as “all Men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights’ are obviously true. Such statements do not require proof. The “truths” are held to be unquestionable and beyond debate, since their truth is said to be obvious.

I'm not going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole... though I agree in much of the sentiment. lol

I think there's a case to be made. If the gun control crowd get too uppity a ruling like this may come down and the whole thing will blow up in their face.

I'm just not willing to conflate our God given, Inalienable Rights (life, liberty & pursuit of happiness), with something drawn up by our Founding Fathers (regardless of how auspicious & wise they may have been).

The right to defend yourself is an inalienable right.

The right to defend yourself is an inalienable right.

Great. There's nothing that specifies what that tool for defense must be. If even one type of weapon is able to be restricted, then any is.