Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on April 16, 2014, 11:07:06 AM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
The five little words are near the bottom of the article.
-
Tease
"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Shame about that completely altering the intent and whatnot.
Or Rather, double plus good news friends; our chocolate ration has been increased once more!
-
Tease
"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Shame about that completely altering the intent and whatnot.
Or Rather, double plus good news friends; our chocolate ration has been increased once more!
Or, to mix & match dystopian ideas: "Take your soma and be a good little Beta rabbit."
-
He is a tyrant in a black robe that is very well protected by those wielding firearms.
-
I am going to look for his book at the library. I realize that this article was just an excerpt from the book and perhaps it is referenced there, but I thought it interesting that he did not comment on how he defines the militia.
-
I think its so sad its almost funny, for a few reasons:
1. He either thinks the militia means the armed forces, in which case, that would make his version of 2A redundant with the rest of the COTUS
2. Or he means organized -federal- "militia" e.g. National guard, but that would be redundant due to that now being part of the standing army
3. Or he means state organized militia, which I doubt, as it would conflict with 10AM, and open the door for any state to simply adopt the original definition of militia and thus -really- open the door to fun times with machine guns.
Also, it further strikes me because he believes that's how it was -originally- meant (militia acts, federalist papers, debates on ratification, etc notwithstanding) which is REALLY stretching, as:
1. Why would there need to be a law preventing congress from infringing on its right to have an armed armed forces? Given that that power is already constitutionally reserved, it would mean that his 2A basically would mean congress can't disarm the military it raised and paid for?
2. It would put 2A at odds with virtually the entirety of the rest of the bill of rights, mainly 1,3,4,5,6,7,8, and by definition 9,10. As the prevention of abrogation of those rights isn't dependent on some defined government service.
Especially 3, that is hilarious. Like you would only be protected from having to quarter soldiers if you were already a soldier? Isn't that a paradox?
That's why I think any of the militia arguments are pretty much stupid. At no point in any part of the BoR or the rest of the constitution are any powers, preventions, or rights contingent on -anything- other than citizenship (well, with the exception of the limits on who can become president)
-
I have a few ideas on how Justice Stevens could be fixed...
-
:facepalm:
Many many countries, empires, and soveirgnties have raised armies, either for defense or conquest, or both. All of these have armed them -- whether they called them an army, a militia or whatever. Neither Hitler or Stalin or any other dictator, or benevolent leader of whatever description, ever thought he needed a piece of paper saying said army/military/militia had the "right" to bear arms. They were soldiers and whether they were to carry a gladius, pike, blunderbuss, crossbow, Brown Bess, Springfield trapdoor, M1 Garand, M16, or AK-47 they were simply armed because to soldiers arms are a needful thing.
Tease
"being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Shame about that completely altering the intent and whatnot.
Or Rather, double plus good news friends; our chocolate ration has been increased once more!
Really, Justice Stevens? Where did you get your law degree -- send in a matchbook cover to some two-bit printing company?
I just have NEVER gotten that sort of tomfoolery.
It's "the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE!"
-
He knows as well as anyone what the Second means. he just doesn't like it so he's trying to subvert it any way he can. The man's not stupid, just evil.
-
He knows as well as anyone what the Second means. he just doesn't like it so he's trying to subvert it any way he can. The man's not stupid, just evil.
I got that much..... I just can't deal with how profoundly beyond reason and logic his peurile attempt to --as you say -- SUBVERT the 2A -- really is. :facepalm:
-
I for one am very glad he is not sitting on the SCOTUS anymore.
-
Remind me again what the party affiliation of the POTUS who appointed Stevens was? Now tell me how I need to vote for Hermano de la Arbusto or that fat sack of crap from the state's that's even more corrupt and anti-freedom than NY because of Supreme Court nominations.
-
Remind me again what the party affiliation of the POTUS who appointed Stevens was? Now tell me how I need to vote for Hermano de la Arbusto or that fat sack of crap from the state's that's even more corrupt and anti-freedom than NY because of Supreme Court nominations.
It seems to me the republican presidents who have nominated justices have a pretty fair record of getting ostensible "conservatives" implaced who then turn out to be liberal.........
:facepalm:
It does make me wonder.....
-
In the era of Borking, it really shouldn't be a wonder...
-
He knows as well as anyone what the Second means. he just doesn't like it so he's trying to subvert it any way he can. The man's not stupid, just evil.
Damn! You keep hitting the nail on the head!
-
He's the POS that wrote the majority opinion on Kelo v. New London. Communist son of a bitch.
-
In the era of Borking, it really shouldn't be a wonder...
While Bork oppposed gun control as a conservative, he actually did NOT believe the Second Ammendment protected our gun rights!
-
While Bork oppposed gun control as a conservative, he actually did NOT believe the Second Ammendment protected our gun rights!
Understood. I am referencing the new standard of scrutiny for SCOTUS nominees.
-
Who decided it was broken?
Seems to be working remarkably well even while under constant assault the last century.
-
Remind me again what the party affiliation of the POTUS who appointed Stevens was? Now tell me how I need to vote for Hermano de la Arbusto or that fat sack of crap from the state's that's even more corrupt and anti-freedom than NY because of Supreme Court nominations.
You beat me to it.
-
While Bork oppposed gun control as a conservative, he actually did NOT believe the Second Ammendment protected our gun rights!
I actually agree with that.
Gun rights are protected by the threat of the exercise of gun rights, not by a piece of paper heavily soiled by all branches of .gov using it to wipe their backsides.
-
I think its so sad its almost funny, for a few reasons:
1. He either thinks the militia means the armed forces, in which case, that would make his version of 2A redundant with the rest of the COTUS
2. Or he means organized -federal- "militia" e.g. National guard, but that would be redundant due to that now being part of the standing army
3. Or he means state organized militia, which I doubt, as it would conflict with 10AM, and open the door for any state to simply adopt the original definition of militia and thus -really- open the door to fun times with machine guns.
Also, it further strikes me because he believes that's how it was -originally- meant (militia acts, federalist papers, debates on ratification, etc notwithstanding) which is REALLY stretching, as:
1. Why would there need to be a law preventing congress from infringing on its right to have an armed armed forces? Given that that power is already constitutionally reserved, it would mean that his 2A basically would mean congress can't disarm the military it raised and paid for?
2. It would put 2A at odds with virtually the entirety of the rest of the bill of rights, mainly 1,3,4,5,6,7,8, and by definition 9,10. As the prevention of abrogation of those rights isn't dependent on some defined government service.
Especially 3, that is hilarious. Like you would only be protected from having to quarter soldiers if you were already a soldier? Isn't that a paradox?
That's why I think any of the militia arguments are pretty much stupid. At no point in any part of the BoR or the rest of the constitution are any powers, preventions, or rights contingent on -anything- other than citizenship (well, with the exception of the limits on who can become president)
Exactly, and the meaning of "militia" able to organically form out of "the people" doesn't change the individual right at all. Combined with Miller vs. U.S. the NFA is
Which goes to show you how many Federal judges, not to mention the SCOTUS Justices themselves are worthless blowhards, even by lawyer and judge standards, (No offence meant Chris/Ned, & co. I bet you even know some of them.), and their law clerks have been doing all the legal work/reasoning behind the scenes for decades.
I would expect that kind of shallow reasoning from some MSM or cable info-babe who got her spot based on looks, sexual favors, and a communications degree, and not even journalism.