Today's lesson in the constitution

domer76 said:
lol

You just keep providing endless entertainment. I love watching fools like you humiliate yourselves.

Vehicles being necessary for a modern society to function has ZERO to do with any Constitutional right. Is there a "right" to electricity, you fucking retard?

Mindless fucking idiot. Laughably pathetic.
Click to expand...

since you can't seem to actually connect anything together with logic and reason, preferring instead to just claim something with zero evidence, i'll just consider you a dumbass of the highest caliber and wrong in every aspect of your idiot life. congrats, you've become dumber than desh.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
since you can't seem to actually connect anything together with logic and reason, preferring instead to just claim something with zero evidence, i'll just consider you a dumbass of the highest caliber and wrong in every aspect of your idiot life. congrats, you've become dumber than desh.
Click to expand...

Tell us about a right to electricity, dumbshit. Of course, electricity “cannot be necessary” because it is not a Constitutional right.

“vehicles cannot be necessary”

Load up yer pack mule, Jethro, to get those goods to market.

HAHAHAHAHA!

horse-Rocky-pack-string04.jpg
 
domer76 said:
The original wording of the 2nd by Madison. Read it and weep, idiot.

“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.''
Click to expand...

LOL your own evidence proves my point, you constitutionally illiterate retard.
 
domer76 said:
Yep. If your right ISN’T infringed, why can’t you pack into your courthouse, moron?

Oh, that’s right. Because you’re a

PUSSY!
Click to expand...

Says the one that's been offered ample opportunities to try and take from me what he doesn't think I should own. The sad part is you've posted pictures you claimed were me and where I lived yet your still refuse to show up.

That's because YOU'RE the pussy.
 
The right calls judges they do not control, activist judges and designate courts not far right as activist courts. The Roberts court is a real example of that. They take fairly direct cases and push them into a direction they want. They make ruling that appear beyond the case. That is activism.
 
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Did you miss the part in capitals? Are you deliberately ignoring it?"
 
Originalism smacks of ego. To pretend you understand what the framers meant a couple centuries ago is a joke. Scalia appointed himself the decider in chief of the thoughts of the constitutional writers. Scalia was a joke. But he was a good writer and was fun to see what words he would make up and use.
 
Originalism smacks of ego. To pretend you understand what the framers meant a couple centuries ago is a joke. Scalia appointed himself the decider in chief of the thoughts of the constitutional writers. Scalia was a joke. But he was a good writer and was fun to see what words he would make up and use. Like Jiggery pokery and pure applesauce.
 
Nordberg said:
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Did you miss the part in capitals? Are you deliberately ignoring it?"
Click to expand...

The barrelstrokers fail to comprehend or acknowledge that the militia was the ENTIRE context around which the 2nd was written.

You nailed it on Scalia. A joke, but an entertaining one.
 
Justice Thomas Cooley considered the question in his 1880 classic General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America — a book that was written, it should be noted, after the use of prefatory clauses had fallen out of fashion. “It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision,” Cooley wrote, that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

St. George Tucker put it in 1803, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government

William Rawle wrote in his seminal A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, that: The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his influential 1833 work, Commentaries on the Constitution, The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
 
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible. — Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Justice Thomas Cooley considered the question in his 1880 classic General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America — a book that was written, it should be noted, after the use of prefatory clauses had fallen out of fashion. “It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision,” Cooley wrote, that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

St. George Tucker put it in 1803, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government

William Rawle wrote in his seminal A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, that: The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his influential 1833 work, Commentaries on the Constitution, The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Click to expand...

Yep, Cooley was correct. The right to bear arms IS in the context of the militia. Finally got that correct.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible. — Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
Click to expand...

Your ability to cut and paste is remarkably unremarkable.
 
domer76 said:
Yep, Cooley was correct. The right to bear arms IS in the context of the militia. Finally got that correct.
Click to expand...

hey fucktard, from Cooleys statement - "It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision,” Cooley wrote, that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent."
 
domer76 said:
Yep, Cooley was correct. The right to bear arms IS in the context of the militia. Finally got that correct.
Click to expand...

Since, according to my State's laws, I'm part of its militia, you shouldn't have a problem if I own guns. For some odd reason, I get the feeling that you do and aren't really concerned about what you claim should apply actually applying in my case. It boils down to you hate guns and don't want people to be able to own them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top