Retired (Republican) Justice Stevens argues for repeal of Second Amendment

[SmarterthanYou]

Domer just provided it. Madison clearly showed that "Bearing arms" was the period vernacular for joining a militia and going to war.

"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" He is exempting people whose religious convictions prevent them from "military service", (Bearing arms).

Within the vernacular of his contemporaries Bearing arms clearly means military service, not to carry in everyday life.
This phrase shines a lot of light on what was meant in the ratified version.

domer is a dumbfuck who wouldn't know madison if madison fucked him in the ass. what matters is what the people voted on and the commentaries reveal that. unless you have that super secret document that says otherwise.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The white man will never get rid of his guns.

So your question is dumb and moot.

Really??
Because I know quite a few Black men who will never get rid of their guns either.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Blacks weren't allowed to own guns when the 2nd was written.....just saying.

And we've progressed past that part of history, thanks to the NRA.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

well regulated militia

Which means that if and when called, they know their position with the militia.
They know who their commander is.

 

[Leonthecat]

domer is a dumbfuck who wouldn't know madison if madison fucked him in the ass. what matters is what the people voted on and the commentaries reveal that. unless you have that super secret document that says otherwise.

It's not a secret.
Madison clearly said that "to bear arms" meant joining in military service. Not carrying a gun in civilian life.
This clarifies what is meant in the second when it refers to "the right to bear arms".

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Any other amendments “ripe for reinterpretation”?

I started a thread, about this very thing.

 

[domer76]

Domer just provided it. Madison clearly showed that "Bearing arms" was the period vernacular for joining a militia and going to war.



"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" He is exempting people whose religious convictions prevent them from "military service", (Bearing arms).

Within the vernacular of his contemporaries Bearing arms clearly means military service, not to carry in everyday life.
This phrase shines a lot of light on what was meant in the ratified version.

I've gone around with that idiot a thousand times. He's dumb as a post and more stubborn. He believes vehicles are unnecessary to the function of a modern society because they are not listed in the Constitution as such.

Do as I did. Put him on your ignore list. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's not a secret.
Madison clearly said "that to bear arms" meant joining in military service. Not carrying in civilian life.

show that 'clear' statement, because a dozen other people represented something completely different to the americna people.

 

[Flash]

why do you think the courts would have no power to overturn? they certainly have it now. what you're trying to do is argue one way or the other. your one way is government. fine, if you think that government is better suited to telling you how to live and deal with things than you are, which speaks more to your insecurities than mine

Because you said the courts should not be able to change the Constitution and said the people have the power to determine its meaning. If we have the Constitution and the government it created then that government has the power to make those decisions.

If we don't follow the constitutionally created government and instead deal with things ourselves, then we have no government. You still have not said how we determine how we will make decisions ourselves except jury nullification which solves nothing. I don't think you have worked out how your system will actually work---you seem to want to follow the Constitution but don't want a government or to follow constitutional law. You want to follow the Constitution only as long as the courts interpret it the way you want.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

White men wrote the 2nd it's their thoughts and ideas of how things should be.

Everything is Black and white in this country because the white man made it that way.

But now it's time for minorities to take over and put you old tired ass racist to bed.

You truly need to seek professional help, unless you already are, and in that case, may I suggest that you increase both your sessions and dosages.

 

[dukkha]

Here's one. I had the original notes of the House's deliberations with the same wording, but I can't locate them now.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...deleted-from-madisons-original-bill-of-rights

Note, the meaning of "bearing arms" was obviously in the context of the military. "Bear arms" did not mean 'pick up your gun and go shoot dinner'.

well it's implied .
the bearing arms refers to a militia -not formal military, and militias supply their own weapons where needed.

So you can still go hunt and fed your family. The independent clause as written however is a clear individual right-
though looking at the other permutations such as this does slightly alter intent

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've gone around with that idiot a thousand times. He's dumb as a post and more stubborn. He believes vehicles are unnecessary to the function of a modern society because they are not listed in the Constitution as such.

Do as I did. Put him on your ignore list. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.

you are a fucking liar. that is not what i said. I pointed out your stupidity about vehicles being necessary because you refuse to acknowledge a right to drive. YOU. dumbfuck

 

[USFREEDOM911]

because there are MILLIONS of us that will not surrender any portion of our 2nd Amendment. how you lose is that out of those millions, there are people who are black that believe as we do. so your own racism is going to get some of your own people killed. that is how you are wrong.

 

[Leonthecat]

show that 'clear' statement, because a dozen other people represented something completely different to the americna people.

Here ya go, again.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."-Madison

"person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" He is exempting people whose religious convictions prevent them from "military service", (Bearing arms).

Within the vernacular of his contemporaries Bearing arms clearly means military service, not to carry in everyday life.
This phrase shines a lot of light on what was meant in the ratified version.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Make good use of it, Jethro. When you hit 45, we're coming for your guns.

And you're just letting your alligator mouth write checks, that you're hummingbird ass has no way of cashing.

 

[dukkha]

It's not a secret.
Madison clearly said that "to bear arms" meant joining in military service. Not carrying a gun in civilian life.
This clarifies what is meant in the second when it refers to "the right to bear arms".

soldiers in the military do not need a right to bear arms-they are issued by the government.
Militias are civilian soldiers that form themselves up for the common defense, but are not US military

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If the second amendment hadn't been abused by gun humping assholes, I don't even think this would be an issue.

I don't know what your experience is, but I have seen gun humping assholes use the 2nd amendment to provide cover for bump stocks, high capacity ammo cartridges, military style assault rifles, and as an excuse to weaken any reasonable universal background checks.

I personally do not see it being feasible to repeal the second amendment..... but there are two things I am sure of:

One is that Rightwingers are either lying their asses off, or demonstrating their abject ignorance. when claiming that repeal of the 2nd amendment is the equivalent of a "ban on all guns".

And secondly, there are probably a lot of people who are sick of gun humpers abusing the second amendment to provide a privilege for military style weapons, weapons possessing ballistic properties only appropriate for the battlefield, and a gun culture that does precious little to keep military style weapons out of the hands of psychopaths, and delusional losers.

How has it been abused??

 

[Leonthecat]

I've gone around with that idiot a thousand times. He's dumb as a post and more stubborn. He believes vehicles are unnecessary to the function of a modern society because they are not listed in the Constitution as such.

Do as I did. Put him on your ignore list. Trust me, you'll be glad you did.

He is a rabid and savage libertarian who will tell you, as quick as Trump will, how smart he thinks he is. Problem is, he never demonstrates it.
LOL

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not a secret.
Madison clearly said that "to bear arms" meant joining in military service. Not carrying a gun in civilian life.
This clarifies what is meant in the second when it refers to "the right to bear arms".

But for some odd reason, that's not the way it was finally written.

 

[Leonthecat]

soldiers in the military do not need a right to bear arms-they are issued by the government.
Militias are civilian soldiers that form themselves up for the common defense, but are not US military

You are trying to apply 21st century definitions to 18th century writings.
In the contemporary vernacular of the late 18th century "bearing arms" meant military service and all armies were referred to as militias.