Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.
Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.
Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
Yes, I bring up that incest is illegal
It is you that assume that all siblings just want to hump each other. You drone on and on and on about it.
Did I actually say that? Or was that another of your patented 'imaginary insinuations'. Where you just cite yourself?
You do realize that *nothing* you've predicted has actually happened, yes? That none of what you insisted had to happen....actually did?
But you've never let reality get in the way of your argument before. Why start now?
It took your side 40+ years.
Mine prediction will occur in half that time.
Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?
^^^^ pervert thinks all heterosexual only want to jump their relatives.
Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?
Do you mean All hat, no cattle?Big hat- no cattle.
I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.
Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.
Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
Scalia's opinion was not for the majority. It was for a plurality. It was joined by Justice Breyer who wrote separately and on a more narrow basis. When there is a split like this, the narrower holding is considered binding. And Breyer acknowledged the religious character of the Ten Commandments text but then Breyer evaluated the text’s religious character in light of the setting and the monument’s origins. A primarily secular organization had donated the monument as part of a campaign against juvenile delinquency, and the display was part of a larger, outdoor setting that included other commemorative markers. Another key factor in Breyer’s opinion was that the Texas monument had generated little controversy during the 40 years it had stood on the Capitol’s grounds. Breyer reasoned that an order to remove the Texas monument – and dozens of similar monuments across the country – would inevitably generate clashes and “thereby create the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.No, it does not. If the Eagles wanted to place one now, they would not be permitted. It would constitute the establishment of religion.No. It is the fact that it was placed on the building when it was constructed. That is what made it not subject to removal. Here, educate yourself. VAN ORDEN V. PERRYIt is because the tablets that have been there for decades makes them historical that they do not constitute the establishment of religion. The tablets are historical; not the ten commandments themselves.
BS, I guess a copy on any historical document doesn't contain the same history of the original, that doesn't make sense. It's the content that makes something historical when it comes to documents.
From your link:
the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
351 F.3d 173, affirmed.
The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history,
That applies regardless of when a monument is placed.
Really, what religion does the 10 commandments establish?
Once again, from your link?
My B/U
The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history,
There is no time line restriction on that.
Correct...now there is just "marriage". YAY!I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.It's very sad, yet amusing that you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. You can conflate the race based laws and the same sex based laws, with the incest based laws all you want. But doing so does not make for a compelling argument or a rational one.
The state has already demonstrated it's interest. That is why there are anti-incest marriage laws on the books, but...
Incest, which is sexual relations between (non-spouse) family members, is outlawed in most countries, including the United States. Incest laws aim to promote security and unity with the family, and to prevent the genetic problems that often occur in babies whose parents are related.and this case...
In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining ..
What is “Family?”
For the purposes of incest laws, “family” can mean several things...
Prosecution and Defenses
Often, a situation involving incest also implicates other criminal laws. For example...
Consent not a defense
A defendant may be convicted of engaging in incest if he knowingly engaged in a sexual encounter with a family member (if no encounter actually took place, the prosecutor may charge the defendant with attempted incest). Because of this...
Who is charged?
Although the ages of the parties are not relevant in proving that incest took place (and are not a defense to such charges), the age of the parties may be relevant as far as who is prosecuted for the crime. For example...
Old cases and the statute of limitations
All states set time periods in which a crime may be prosecuted, such as five or ten years after the incident. Such laws are intended to ensure that cases are handled relatively quickly, and recognize the danger in prosecuting old cases where the facts may be difficult to discern. In some states... -
Incest Laws and Criminal Charges | Nolo.com
Generally, in cases like this involving “consensual activity within the home,” it comes down to the question of whether the government has “a compelling state interest” in regulating the activity. “Some courts recognize that the government does have an interest in regulating incestuous conduct because of the risk of pregnancy and the heightened risk of genetic defect,” he says. Other courts will convict even without such a risk: In Ohio, a sexual battery statute states that a stepparent should never have sexual contact with a stepchild (and that is regardless of age). Most courts are concerned about parents preying on their children, he said. “Regardless of the age of the child, there’s still a theory that a parent is always a parent, a child is always a child and, as a result, there truly can’t be a consensual sexual act.” That explains why the daughter isn’t charged in this case. “The idea is the perpetrator is the parent and the victim is the child. We don’t normally prosecute a person falling within the protected class, and you remain a member of the protected class even above age of consent.” -
The law on “consensual” incest
The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.
Silly Pops.
There is no burden of proof on the state now.
Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?
The State has no burden of proving anything.
You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.
But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.
There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus
Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.
Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
Says who?
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
Black letter text? Like this:I was pointing out that your comment that a majority ruling should be the exception did not take into account that they were an exception. Clearly, something you did not know. But, you are right, if it were not for the four conservative justices who continue to allow their own prejudices to guide them, rather than the law, there would be more unanimous decisions.Every ruling is a majority ruling. Some are unanimous. In fact, in 2014, they had the highest % of unanimous rulings ever, 73%.
Right, on some pretty mundane stuff.
Right, using original intent and black letter text of the Constitution while resisting the court becoming a legislative body is now some kind of prejudice. Only in the eyes of the regressive.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Denying gay people the ability to marry denies them equal protection of the law. It relegates them and their relationships to a lesser status. And it denies them "liberty". That is black letter law. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand these concepts and how they apply to the world we live in.
And of course you have perfected the "gay" test that proves it actually exists.
If I need to determine the race or gender of an individual, there are tests that are extremely reliable. We don't simply take the word of that individual.
the colonials would muster with handguns and shotguns?because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
and those were YOUR arms, not something the government kept locked up (although they had those as well).
If I were to go back thru this thread to find out who brought up "incest" and marrying one's close relatives first......I wonder who I would find.............How many of those have a 14th amendment like ours?
How many have folks such as yourself that don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about?
Remember, we've had the 14th amendement for the decade since we first started legalizing same sex marriage. And yet no where, in no court, has the law recognized your claims. No court has. And none of what you predicted would happen......actually happened.
How do you explain the vast chasm between what you *assumed* was going to happen. And what actually did?
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
That's one looooong friggin decade!
Same sex marriage was first legalized in 1868? You seem confused.
Same sex marriage was first legalized in the US in 2004....in Massechusettes. Yet since that time, nothing you predicted would occur actually happened. Despite the fact that we've had the 14th amendment the entire time.
So again, how do you explain the utter and comic failure of your *every* prediction, with absolutely nothing you insisted must happen actually happening or being recognized as valid by any court?
Let's not forget that the same prediction was made when interracial marriage was legalized...that it would lead to Polygamy and incest. It didn't.
Why do you keep bringing up incest? It's illegal.
Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
Says who?
This is a pretty good definition.
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
It took your side 40+ years.
Mine prediction will occur in half that time.
Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?
^^^^ pervert thinks all heterosexual only want to jump their relatives.
Why will it take your 20 years to file a law suit for your rights to marry a sibling or your mother?
Yeah, his response really had nothing to do with your question.
But then, Pop is merely trolling. He doesn't want debate. He wants to disrupt threads with his obsessions about incest.
lol, says queen troll ^^^^^^
And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?Then use the original text to show me 'right to self defense with a fire arm'.
No implication. No inferences. No historical context. No 'this is what they really meant'. Just the text. If you're gonna go literalist, you gonna be held to a literalist standard.
And are nuclear arms 'arms'? If no, why not? If yes, then do you believe the 2nd amendment permit the private ownership and use of nuclear weapons?
And lastly, what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? Specifically the 'unreasonable' part, using nothing but the straight text.
Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
Says who?
This is a pretty good definition.
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
No....you misunderstood...the discrimination was in gender....SSM was illegal but OSM was legal....one's gender choice for partner was a point of unConstitutionality by state governments when they restricted one gender vs another. That's been rectified. Hurrah!I'm not following your logic here. SSM is a civil right. But who said you have to prove that you are gay? Have those over the centuries getting OSM'd had to prove they were straight? What kind of test was that?Not legally we could not....Ironically, for those who are a-feared of gay marriage folks forcing themselves on church, we were married in a church over a decade before we were married legally.Actually we did in California...but now we don't have to worry about going to visit relatives in Texas or Virginia or North Carolina anymore.
You always could.
Prove you're gay. How can we know you were discriminated against without proof of what you say you are. What exactly is the gay test? That we just have to take your word for it?
And the Love test that proves you couldn't marry the one you loved? Can you link to the State sanctioned love test? That would be a huge help.
If a black man accuses me of discrimination, I have a right that he prove he's black, and he can. If a woman accuses me of gender discrimination, I have a right to ask them to prove their gender.
So I'm sure you can provide proof of your sexuality.
We'll wait.
And what is this about having to prove one is gay? Where does THAT come from? Why is it that you suddenly want proof of my sexuality? Are you some kind of sick voyeur?
If gays say they are, and this is a civil right, then just as others (blacks, genders), then why can't we ask the same of you?
Too much to ask?
It is the gay population claiming discrimination. How do we even know "gay" exists? The test please.
Correct...now there is just "marriage". YAY!I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.The burdon of proof is now on the state to prove it has a compelling state interest TO DENY this fundimental right.
Silly Pops.
There is no burden of proof on the state now.
Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?
The State has no burden of proving anything.
You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.
But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.
There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus
the colonials would muster with handguns and shotguns?because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
and those were YOUR arms, not something the government kept locked up (although they had those as well).
you prove you still are talking out of your arse
Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodlesThis is a pretty good definition.
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
And where is this 'common law definition of arms'?Actually explosives are usually categorized as artillery, and not arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear cut.
By who? I've never heard of the 'Nuclear Artillery Race" or any kind of 'Nuclear Artillery Treaty'. Nuclear arms races, nuclear arms treaties....yeah, I've heard of those.
There were privately owned cannon and privately owned warships with cannon during the revolutionary war. So why wouldn't artillery be included in 'arms'?
because arms at the time meant your rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever you could bring with you when you mustered when called on.
Says who?
This is a pretty good definition.
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
Glad we agree that after Obergefell there is just marriage.Correct...now there is just "marriage". YAY!I hate to see Pop wasting all his time here instead of actual filing his legal briefs for incest marriage....they won't file themselves.Silly Pops.
There is no burden of proof on the state now.
Perhaps there would be if you filed suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- but now?
The State has no burden of proving anything.
You would think he would be rushing out there to file just to show us all how horrible gay marriage is.
But maybe he is Texan- all hat- no cattle.
There is no such thing as gay marriage dufus
Does this surprise you? I've been saying it for months
Peopel!!! Look up Constitution Society and Jon Roland and Texas Libertarian Wack-a-doodlesThis is a pretty good definition.
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
Libertarian whackos go on about original intent nonsense with arguments only a child could think up. The link above speaks to militias and arms. It argues more about tyranny than about the real threats facing the colonials and early Americans.
Whiskey Rebellion? A militia was called up to put it down. The nuts focus on arms being needed to face down tyranny. They get stuck on the one amendment and like Bible thumpers at bible readings they seek hidden meanings that fit into their mind starved patterns.
Then libertarians affiliated with the Constitution Society practices the Paranoid Style in American Politics. They are laser focused on tyrannies that do not exist.
