Off-Topic Mass killings

Advertisement
If you supported trading that feckless cünt Griner for Bout, NEVER SPEAK AGAIN ABOUT GUN CONTROL MUPPETS.

Screenshot_20221221_092533_SmartNews.jpg


Full stop.
 
So you are saying that they either thought no new technology would be developed for weapons or they forgot to say just the things now are what you can have? Odd that a group of people who just overthrown the most powerful empire and are writing things to prevent tyranny and allowing it to be overthrown would intend to handicap such a thing.
I'm talking about from a strictly originalist viewpoint, you would not interpret the Constitution based on anything that did not exist at the time of its writing. Here is the definition of originalism again.

: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written

I'm just pointing out that it's interesting how the philosophy of originalism is chosen to be used in some areas of the Constitution, but not others.
 
Yes. He's also saying:
  • Free speech only applies to literal spoken word, handwritten letters and the Gutenberg press - not email, chat, television, radio or telegraph.
  • The government can search your home without warrant if it uses modern steel or stick frame construction, can search your backpack if it has a zipper etc
  • The government can force you to quarter soldiers in the same cases as above
  • That voting via scanned ballot, mail-in ballot, or anything but paper and quills or calligraphy pens is not protected.
  • Abortion is only protected when using a coat-hanger
  • etc
It's really the dumbest take I've read on here in a long time.
Actually, there have been many laws enacted to clarify many of the issues you mentioned above because clarification was needed on those issues. LOL
 
Advertisement
I'm talking about from a strictly originalist viewpoint, you would not interpret the Constitution based on anything that did not exist at the time of its writing. Here is the definition of originalism again.

: a legal philosophy that the words in documents and especially the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written

I'm just pointing out that it's interesting how the philosophy of originalism is chosen to be used in some areas of the Constitution, but not others.
You have the definition of originalism correct, but the understanding of it very wrong.

“Your right to bare arms shall not be infringed” does not mean only the guns they had then. It means no law shall ever be written to infringe on your right to bare arms.

I have no idea if you actually understand orginalism or if you’re perverting the meaning of it to win this argument, so I’ll make it easier to understand for everyone who reads this. Originalism is about interpreting it in a very literal sense and not having anything to do with the time. Our founders wrote that document to protect the citizens of this country, in order to make sure the country still existed 100+ years in the future. It wasn’t just about what was in front of them at that very moment.
 
You have the definition of originalism correct, but the understanding of it very wrong.

“Your right to bare arms shall not be infringed” does not mean only the guns they had then. It means no law shall ever be written to infringe on your right to bare arms.

I have no idea if you actually understand orginalism or if you’re perverting the meaning of it to win this argument, so I’ll make it easier to understand for everyone who reads this. Originalism is about interpreting it in a very literal sense and not having anything to do with the time. Our founders wrote that document to protect the citizens of this country, in order to make sure the country still existed 100+ years in the future. It wasn’t just about what was in front of them at that very moment.
Either way he's making a fool of himself. He doesn't understand the CONUS is NOT an enumeration of the peoples' rights, but an enumeration of the limited powers of government.

It's very sad that every discussion about the Bill of Rights ends up being an elementary school civics lesson.
 
Advertisement
Either way he's making a fool of himself. He doesn't understand the CONUS is NOT an enumeration of the peoples' rights, but an enumeration of the limited powers of government.

It's very sad that every discussion about the Bill of Rights ends up being an elementary school civics lesson.
Your point about the constitution is sadly true for over half the country now.
 
You have the definition of originalism correct, but the understanding of it very wrong.

“Your right to bare arms shall not be infringed” does not mean only the guns they had then. It means no law shall ever be written to infringe on your right to bare arms.

I have no idea if you actually understand orginalism or if you’re perverting the meaning of it to win this argument, so I’ll make it easier to understand for everyone who reads this. Originalism is about interpreting it in a very literal sense and not having anything to do with the time. Our founders wrote that document to protect the citizens of this country, in order to make sure the country still existed 100+ years in the future. It wasn’t just about what was in front of them at that very moment.
Disagree, but I do agree on the fact we all have the right to bare arms.

tv land diana trout GIF by YoungerTV
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top