Interpreting the 2A

[nortatoga]

We are going around in circles here. How courts work have nothing to do with what they pick and choose to look at.

But it does! It takes four Justices to grant Certiorari to review a lower Court case. Now this little tid-bit usually shuts the discussion down as those bitching don't want to hear the truth!

Since the Heller and McDonald cases there are four Liberal justices that are just about guaranteed to rule against anything 2A and five that are supposed to be Conservative and 2A friendly. But Kennedy has been a swing vote! Maybe it was Roberts they were unsure of! If the Liberals thought they could pull one of the five to their side, Why would they not grant Cert. The Conservatives were unsure they had the votes to protect the 2A in each a everyone of the most recent 2A cases! But some here want to gamble away their 2A rights on those odds!! Is that right @Willjr75 ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

But it does! It takes four Justices to grant Certiorari to review a lower Court case. Now this little tid-bit usually shuts the discussion down as those bitching don't want to hear the truth!

Since the Heller and McDonald cases there are four Liberal justices that are just about guaranteed to rule against anything 2A and five that are supposed to be Conservative and 2A friendly. But Kennedy has been a swing vote! Maybe it was Roberts they were unsure of! If the Liberals thought they could pull one of the five to their side, Why would they not grant Cert. The Conservatives were unsure they had the votes to protect the 2A in each a everyone of the most recent 2A cases! But some here want to gamble away their 2A rights on those odds!! Is that right @Willjr75 ?

Your quote above proves the corruption and impartial opinions.

I keep getting sucked into responding in circles about their corruption, conjecture, and the picking and choosing that you guys legitimatize.

It's like both of you ignore those points over and over and return with the same thing. It's either you didn't read it or did and can't dispute it.

Me. 1+1=2

You. Back then 1 didn't really mean 1.

Me. George Washington himself was quoted as saying 1+1=2 in the Federalist Paper #9 Edition.

You. Court case bla bla bla said that back then 1 may not have actually been 1.

Me. That court issued a biased opinion. They completely ignored his quote. He even explained what 1 meant.

You. You don't know how courts work.

Me. I do. They pick and choose what they want to skew their decision.

You. But in the people vs bla bla the court said.

Me. Didn't I just tell you that the court ignored GW himself? Here is his actual quote.

You. Silence.

Another point is made by a 3rd party.

You . Well court case such and such said bla bla bla.

Me. 

No matter how many times it proven to you which amendments have restrictions and what the founders themselves actually quoted, you'll go back to some corrupt decision.

It's tiring. Anyone reading this thread can see what you 2 are doing. And no amount of court decisions or exclamation points that you type change what the founders actually said.

 

[nortatoga]

And Willy boy I welcome them to join in!! But it seems to be only you!

And their quotes are not the BOR's

And were you really in the Marines ? Because George Washington was a Military General and the uniformed military open carry to conceal could be construed as big a spy, and we know what happen to spies! Today they get a trial then they were just hung!!

Again anyone who agrees with @Willjr75 please join in and gang up on me!!!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

And Willy boy I welcome them to join in!! But it seems to be only you!

And their quotes are not the BOR's

And were you really in the Marines ? Because George Washington was a Military General and the uniformed military open carry to conceal could be construed as big a spy, and we know what happen to spies! Today they get a trial then they were just hung!!

Again anyone who agrees with @Willjr75 please join in and gang up on me!!!!!

Here's a PM I received. I blured out the name because I'm not sure if he wants to remain anonymous or not.

So now you want to question my military service? Read my Signature. You are a joke.

 

[nortatoga]

Here's a PM I received. I blured out the name because I'm not sure if he wants to remain anonymous or not.

View attachment 38121

Nice touch! But let them join in! But the thread is interpreting the 2A !

 

[nortatoga]

On another note my PM's don't look anything like that?

 

[Truebeliever]

Forget it. You keep saying the same thing. It's tiring. I've already numerous times explained how the courts pick and choose arguments that they can use to further their agenda, add conjecture, and ignore what's actually written in the Bill of Rights in it's entirety.

We are getting nowhere with this conversation. You'll just keep pointing out how the courts work and justify their nonsense. It's not the process of how they work that's the issue. It's what they use during the process to further their agenda that's the issue.

Because you keep thinking if they don’t agree with you,they are corrupt.Or that things are black and white.

As I said, there are restrictions on all of the rights and powers mentioned in the constitution. There are rights by common law not mentioned.

Judges debate and disagree all the time. Are there politics at SCOTUS. Absolutely, but among the justices. Think about it. If a justice knows he is right on a case but knows he can’t get four others to agree with him, why would they bring the case up? Imagine if Heller was decided the other way. Semi auto would be banned right now,

You can keep thinking it’s corrupt but most people honestly disagree with you.

And because YOU believe a law to be constitutional, it doesn’t make it so.

There is a reason why the court determines it and not the police.Imgine if a “snowflake” becomes a cop and refuses to arrest someone who committed a murder because they are a minority and believed it was unconstitutional. Or that if someone threatened to kill tour wife, it’s just freedom of speech, not to arrest them.

Or the cop thinks he can do something. Remember a lot of the “rights” a defendant has is from court interpretation rather than actually stated in the constitution. Show me where the Miranda warning is said in the constitution. Or the exclusionary rule.

That’s why the courts determine it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

 

[nortatoga]

@Truebeliever Looks like little Willy submits!

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Truebeliever Looks like little Willy submits!

No Quisling. There isn't much to say when those beat keep repeating the same thing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

On another note my PM's don't look anything like that?

Change your color scheme Quisling.

 

[nortatoga]

No those beat resort to insults and name calling!! Your move!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

No those beat resort to insults and name calling!! Your move!!!

Beat how? More Supreme Court cases? Take apart my points. Until then...

 

[nortatoga]

Beat how? More Supreme Court cases? Take apart my points. Until then...

You are a sad case! If and when my opinions are proved wrong about the Constitution I will be man enough to say I was wrong! Will you or will you keep on about the courts being corrupt?

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are a sad case! If and when my opinions are proved wrong about the Constitution I will be man enough to say I was wrong! Will you or will you keep on about the courts being corrupt?

Sorry Fudd. I already proved them wrong. Read the thread from the beginning.

 

[holdover]

And their quotes are not the BOR's

!!

That is correct, The writings of the founding fathers are not literally contained in the BOL's. But what is does do is explain the reasoning behind them. An honest interpretation must be viewed in the context of the founding fathers intent. Not an interpretation of the word "'is" or a comma. Anybody reading what they have said , and coming to the conclusion that the intent of the founding fathers was to only have the government armed and that the people should not have military weapons would have to be dishonest , or their reading comprehension impaired. Their writings are crystal clear.

When a judge interprets the legal meaning of the law , it should be done through the lens of the founding fathers thoughts , that's where the intent of the law lies. Restriction of rights except under due process of law was never advocated . When the liberal scholars call the constitution a living document what they are saying is that it is a flexible document , subject to change .which changes the meaning to interpretation .

We have all seen what Legal precedence based on judges opinions has done to the 2nd amendment , The law continues to change until it becomes only an abstract idea from what used to be a concrete law .
And what did they say about continuing down that path? That it will eventually lead to tyranny. The absence of the constitution, Will mean the weakening of the checks and balances ,which is the glue that holds it all together. And It will without a doubt end in tyranny. And tyranny is nothing more than unchecked power. This country is slowly failing because of the interpretations of the law. Loopholes in the laws created for the corrupted class .Interpretations of the law is why Bill and Hillary Clinton were not hung years ago. or why the governor of NYS can deny the people of their rights to access certain arms.

 

[holdover]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." ( Well regulated)
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


Was it the intent of the law that people should not be allowed to carry a weapon if they felt the need? That citizens need a permit and must register their arms? That persons inalienable right to self defense must be allowed or permitted by government?

Based on the writings of the founders, it is crystal clear what the intent of the law was.

 

[Truebeliever]

That is correct, The writings of the founding fathers are not literally contained in the BOL's. But what is does do is explain the reasoning behind them. An honest interpretation must be viewed in the context of the founding fathers intent. Not an interpretation of the word "'is" or a comma. Anybody reading what they have said , and coming to the conclusion that the intent of the founding fathers was to only have the government armed and that the people should not have military weapons would have to be dishonest , or their reading comprehension impaired. Their writings are crystal clear.

When a judge interprets the legal meaning of the law , it should be done through the lens of the founding fathers thoughts , that's where the intent of the law lies. Restriction of rights except under due process of law was never advocated . When the liberal scholars call the constitution a living document what they are saying is that it is a flexible document , subject to change .which changes the meaning to interpretation .

We have all seen what Legal precedence based on judges opinions has done to the 2nd amendment , The law continues to change until it becomes only an abstract idea from what used to be a concrete law .
And what did they say about continuing down that path? That it will eventually lead to tyranny. The absence of the constitution, Will mean the weakening of the checks and balances ,which is the glue that holds it all together. And It will without a doubt end in tyranny. And tyranny is nothing more than unchecked power. This country is slowly failing because of the interpretations of the law. Loopholes in the laws created for the corrupted class .Interpretations of the law is why Bill and Hillary Clinton were not hung years ago. or why the governor of NYS can deny the people of their rights to access certain arms.

They were people who were very careful in their writing with each word. Go look at the edits Ben Franklin did to the Declaration of Independence.

A comma or phrase in the law was intentional . That comma is why it’s an independent right. It separates the thought from the collective need of a state milita to the independent right of the people.

The federalist papers and such was a guide to the thoughts of some of the founders, but not all. Like today, it was a political battle and they made compromises. The two houses of Congress was a compromise to give less population states power and give power to each state. It was the same with the bill of rights.

Again, part of the interpretation test was why didn’t they write it , “states can have a milita”. Because they believed in the individual right but why words “ well regulated “ when they said milita.

Each word and comma and sentence structure was important.

Again, just look at the edits Franklin made to the Declaration of Independence.

Three Words Ben Franklin Crossed out of the Declaration of Independence

These were men of the written word and of action. Words were important to them .

We are all in agreement it was an individual right. But the argument is if there are limitations to that right. None, of the quotes used so far as said otherwise. It just says we have an individual right to arms.

But “well regulated “ part comes in.

Again, are there any limits that the founding fathers would have been okay with. The answer is yes by how they allowed states to impose some restrictions. The question is what restrictions. What is it. Scalia said “common use”as the ground floor for the individual right. That includes full capacity magazines, semi autos, etc.

But the basic answer is yes, some limitations are constitutional, no different than the other rights.

Its where those limits are is where we disagree with each other

 

[holdover]

""Each word and comma and sentence structure was important.""

I agree. It is very important. But not to the point of misrepresentation. Well, what is misrepresentation?

What is interpreted, must be viewed through the ideas and thoughts of those who wrote them . If the interpretation strays from the sprit of the law , If it conflicts , with the thoughts and writings of the founders then it cannot be an accurate interpretation. When ,or if the grammar or definition redefines the law, it must be in concert , not conflict, with the intentions and thoughts of founders.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson,

 

[holdover]

Now let me ask you if you think that the laws regarding the second Amendment are what the founders intended?

( not if they are legal,) But if they reflect the intentions of the founders had in mind?

 

[holdover]

"""We are all in agreement it was an individual right. But the argument is if there are limitations to that right. None, of the quotes used so far as said otherwise. It just says we have an individual right to arms.
But “well regulated “ part comes in.""

Lets start from the beginning,where does the writings infer that certain limits be placed on the natural inalienable rights of the population? Lets start there.

 

[nortatoga]

First let me say @holdover glad you are in this discussion.

By this link, unless some cases are missing the SCOTUS seems to be about right, with there decisions on these cases for the times?

List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Marine Cpl]

First let me say @holdover glad you are in this discussion.

By this link, unless some cases are missing the SCOTUS seems to be about right, with there decisions on these cases for the times?

List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia

There you go again with the court cases. You don't understand what we are saying in regards to the courts?

 

[@thewheels]

There you go again with the court cases. You don't understand what we are saying in regards to the courts?

Red team/blue team/purple team thing

Court cases decided subjectively, by a subjective body should carry exactly no authority.
Putting faith in an organ of the government proven to operate OUTSIDE of the framers intentions for an OBJECTIVE judicial body for at least several decades should end the debate.

 

[Truebeliever]

Red team/blue team/purple team thing

Court cases decided subjectively, by a subjective body should carry exactly no authority.
Putting faith in an organ of the government proven to operate OUTSIDE of the framers intentions for an OBJECTIVE judicial body for at least several decades should end the debate.

Then nothing carries authority. There is no system then.

It does hold weight in case and common law whether you agree or not.

That’s why the justices chosen are so important. And many justices rule against their personal beliefs but vote in the way they did because of the ramifications to other examples. The flag burning case is an example . Scalia votes to allow that as freedom of speech but said if he were king he would not allow it and detested it.

 

[@thewheels]

Then nothing carries authority. There is no system then. It does but It really shouldn't until issues are addressed.

It does hold weight in case and common law whether you agree or not. I agree. It does but that doesn't mean it's not corrupted and operating outside the framers' intent. This includes the lower courts as well.

That’s why the justices chosen are so important. And many justices rule against their personal beliefs but vote in the way they did because of the ramifications to other examples. The flag burning case is an example . Scalia votes to allow that as freedom of speech but said if he were king he would not allow it and detested it.

I'm not seeing the evidence for many justices passing decisions that go against their personal beliefs. I know it happens but it's not been normal. The decisions follow party line/agenda or more frequently covering/serving the government's interests.