Antonin Scalia opens his mouth again and inserts foot.

[nick1985]

A pike would have fallen under that definition of arms in the 18th. And if we're using the 18th century to determine what is and isn't a weapon, why would modern weapons fall under that definition? I think only weapons made before the 2nd amendment was written should be legal by this logic.

So free speech doesn't apply to the internet, since that wasn't around then.

See how dumb your argument is?



Plus, many framers explicitly said that they wanted the populace to have arms that are similar to the military's. But whatever, you know what the 2nd amendment means, the people who wrote it dont.

 

[nick1985]

did they have assault rifles in the 18th century? They certainly had pikes. Hell, the Swiss Guard still uses pikes. 😀

Full auto/select fire weapons are illegal without a class III license. Since thats the definition of an assault rifle, they are already illegal and not many people raise a stink about it. Its the laws that forbid people from having a CCW, or laws that make anything black and scary illegal. These laws are fucking retarded and fly in the face of the 2nd amendment.


Unless you dont know what an assault rifle is and are just going off what the media feeds you?

Which of these rifles is an "assault rifle"

Hint: Neither

 

[nick1985]

Like I said, you got nothing. But nice try. For a Republican.

I have something, it was a great try. Also, I am not a Republican.


Lets try this in reverse, to see if I can get through your thick skull:

Since Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, that means all Democrats cheat on their wives.

See how asanine that is?

 

[bfdd]

I have something, it was a great try. Also, I am not a Republican.


Lets try this in reverse, to see if I can get through your thick skull:

Since Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, that means all Democrats cheat on their wives.

See how asanine that is?

It doesn't work like that. Democrats are all free thinkers and all unique. They would never think alike or tow a party line.... lol

 

[soulcougher73]

You guys are arguing over semantics yet once again. Bravo LOL.

 

[nick1985]

Your saying what the forefathers believed is, indeed, speculation into how they intended the language to be interpreted. Using definitions of that time as comparison is useful--I certainly agree--but it still involves speculation into the minds of men that are no longer here to defend the meaning behind said language.

Speculation?


Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry





I'm not speculating the founders intent one bit. Although they are no longer here, their words are. They make it crystal clear

 

[theeedude]

I have something, it was a great try. Also, I am not a Republican.


Lets try this in reverse, to see if I can get through your thick skull:

Since Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, that means all Democrats cheat on their wives.

See how asanine that is?

It is VERY asinine for you to make this false comparison. Republicans want Scalia and people like him on the bench. When you vote for Republicans, these are the kinds of judges you are helping put in our courtrooms.
Scalia is the guy the newly elected GOP House goes to for Constitutional advice:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...calia-accepts-invitation-to-address-house-gop
So when you vote for GOP you help promote Scalia's views. No getting around it.

 

[bfdd]

It is VERY asinine for you to make this false comparison. Republicans want Scalia and people like him on the bench. When you vote for Republicans, these are the kinds of judges you are helping put in our courtrooms.

So if you vote Dem you want judges that want to ban books? Guess we can't win with either major party.

 

[nick1985]

It is VERY asinine for you to make this false comparison. Republicans want Scalia and people like him on the bench. When you vote for Republicans, these are the kinds of judges you are helping put in our courtrooms.

Would it be fair to assume that Ruth's views reflect every single Democrat's views? How about Sonya's? What happens when a Democrat believes in something that Ruth doesn't? Does the world explode?

 

[rasczak]

Doh!

 

[Gyhrg71]

So free speech doesn't apply to the internet, since that wasn't around then.

See how dumb your argument is?

Read what I wrote again

"A pike would have fallen under that definition of arms in the 18th. And if we're using the 18th century to determine what is and isn't a weapon, why would modern weapons fall under that definition? I think only weapons made before the 2nd amendment was written should be legal by this logic."

I'm not arguing that we should ban modern weapons. Since you support originalism I was merely pointing out the obvious logic. And yes, if you country to exist like it did in its founding there will be no free speech on the internet, blacks can go back to being slaves and only land owners can vote.

 

[theeedude]

Would it be fair to assume that Ruth's views reflect every single Democrat's views? How about Sonya's? What happens when a Democrat believes in something that Ruth doesn't? Does the world explode?

GOP is inviting Scalia to give them seminars on the Constitution. A guy who does not believe the equal protection clause protects women from government discrimination.
And yes, when you vote for Democrats, you are voting to put people like Ruth and Sonya on the court, just like when you vote for Republicans, you are voting to put people like Tony "Constitution Doesn't protect Women" and Clarence the fetishist on it.

 

[Gyhrg71]

Speculation?


Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee 1788

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them. -- Thomas Paine

We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists. - Patrick Henry





I'm not speculating the founders intent one bit. Although they are no longer here, their words are. They make it crystal clear

So, what kind of guns did they want you to have? Flintlocks and blunderbusses? 😎

 

[Siddhartha]

What an ignoramus. I hope women realize what they are voting for when they elect Republicans.

I hope so.

 

[Anarchist420]

The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional. There's nothing originalist about it, since it was written by people who were anti-originalist.

 

[xj0hnx]

Full auto/select fire weapons are illegal without a class III license.

Actually there is no license, you have to pay a tax and get the stamp for each Class III item. $200 for Class III for machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and $5 for AOW's. There's also the SOT, which is the Special Occupational Tax to be a dealer (Class 3), manufacturer (Class 2), or importer (Class 1).

🙂

 

[nick1985]

Actually there is no license, you have to pay a tax and get the stamp for each Class III item. $200 for Class III for machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and $5 for AOW's. There's also the SOT, which is the Special Occupational Tax to be a dealer (Class 3), manufacturer (Class 2), or importer (Class 1).

🙂

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[bfdd]

GOP is inviting Scalia to give them seminars on the Constitution. A guy who does not believe the equal protection clause protects women from government discrimination.
And yes, when you vote for Democrats, you are voting to put people like Ruth and Sonya on the court, just like when you vote for Republicans, you are voting to put people like Tony "Constitution Doesn't protect Women" and Clarence the fetishist on it.

lol like I said and he said, when it was written and passed it did not intend to mean women. That much is OBVIOUS as the womans suffrage movement gained a shit load of steam around the 14ths passing because it did not apply to women. This is why we had to pass separate legislation so they could vote. Are you telling me history is wrong?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

A pike would have fallen under that definition of arms in the 18th. And if we're using the 18th century to determine what is and isn't a weapon, why would modern weapons fall under that definition? I think only weapons made before the 2nd amendment was written should be legal by this logic.

arm 2 (ärm)n.1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. armsa. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.

4. armsa. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.

Weapons, armies, ICBMS, bombs, and nukes. All of those are "arms." By your logic, citizens should not be allowed to own early repeating rifles because they didn't exist in the era of the founding fathers. Citizens can't own nukes either. But we can own current, modern firearms (e.g., AR-15s, bolt-actions, handguns) because they are current firearms, which is how the Founding Fathers meant it. They did not assume that flintlocks would be the cutting-edge forever.

 

[OutHouse]

Marlin, I'm not disagreeing. The suffrage movement gained a shit load of steam after the passing of the 14th and led to the passing of women being allowed to vote. All I'm saying is that IN CONTEXT OF THE ERA, Scalia is right. He is also saying anything the constitution doesn't cover we can legislate. So any mix ups or mess ups from years past can be corrected.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1868,

the 19th amendment to the constitution was ratified in 1920.

52 years, thats not a lot of steam....

 

[thraashman]

lol like I said and he said, when it was written and passed it did not intend to mean women. That much is OBVIOUS as the womans suffrage movement gained a shit load of steam around the 14ths passing because it did not apply to women. This is why we had to pass separate legislation so they could vote. Are you telling me history is wrong?

Actually the 14th Amendment didn't give any additional people in the nation the right to vote either. The 15th Amendment prohibits denial of suffrage based on race. The 19th Amendment then extended suffrage to women as well. However the 14th Amendment does explicitly say

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

I don't see the part in there where it says "All straight men born or naturalized in the United States...". Ah, now I know why I don't see it, because it wasn't in there and totally meant to provide equal protections to ALL Americans regardless of any reason. And know why I figure that out, I'm not a fucking retard that's why.

 

[Genx87]

did they have assault rifles in the 18th century? They certainly had pikes. Hell, the Swiss Guard still uses pikes. 😀

Or, are we supposed to allow the language to "adapt" to modern technology and customs, thus successfully arguing that assault weapons bans are unconstitutional.

i mean, you can either stick with strict originalism to support centuries-old reality, or allow the language to adapt, as intended, for contemporary use. You can't have it both ways when it suits you to do so--just as Scalia and his ilk are want to do.

Your saying what the forefathers believed is, indeed, speculation into how they intended the language to be interpreted. Using definitions of that time as comparison is useful--I certainly agree--but it still involves speculation into the minds of men that are no longer here to defend the meaning behind said language.

Just accept that what we all do when reading this language is a shit-ton of speculation and interpretation. One thing we do know about Jefferson and Adams, though, is that originalism was certainly not their intended interpretation of their document. Otherwise, there would be no amendment system.

What is an "assault rifle"?

What makes it different from a gun?

 

[nick1985]

What is an "assault rifle"?

What makes it different from a gun?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31017637&postcount=27

I'm awaiting his response as well

 

[werepossum]

lol like I said and he said, when it was written and passed it did not intend to mean women. That much is OBVIOUS as the womans suffrage movement gained a shit load of steam around the 14ths passing because it did not apply to women. This is why we had to pass separate legislation so they could vote. Are you telling me history is wrong?

Correct. Anyway capable of dressing himself should understand that Scalia is correct simply because otherwise there would have been no need for a Nineteenth Amendment. However, progressives have found it more useful to simply have the Constitution mean whatever they want than to actually change it.

Anyone who believes that only weapons in existence at the time are protected by the Second Amendment should have the basic honesty to use only words and media available when the First Amendment was ratified. That one change would increase the Internet's collective intelligence vastly and its collective honesty immeasurably.

 

[Gyhrg71]

Weapons, armies, ICBMS, bombs, and nukes. All of those are "arms."

Yes. And so would a pike as its a weapon.

By your logic, citizens should not be allowed to own early repeating rifles because they didn't exist in the era of the founding fathers. Citizens can't own nukes either. But we can own current, modern firearms (e.g., AR-15s, bolt-actions, handguns) because they are current firearms, which is how the Founding Fathers meant it. They did not assume that flintlocks would be the cutting-edge forever.

Huh? That wasn't my argument at all.