forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

PanteraCanes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Advertisement
Suhrthing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, there have been many laws enacted to clarify many of the issues you mentioned above because clarification was needed on those issues. LOL
 
Suhrthing said:
Have you ever been right on this site? Do you ever post anything of real substance? LOL.
Click to expand...
Funny, how we often have the same thoughts of each other? LOL


king of the hill deal with it GIF
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Suhrthing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your point about the constitution is sadly true for over half the country now.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
PCBcanefan said:
Proper parenting and safe gun storage is what I’m thinking, but I see what you are putting out there.
Click to expand...
Trudat… kid shouldn’t have had access to the gun and sounds like the kid had some terrible parents to not only take a gun, but to actually want to use it.

But why this is in “mass killings” thread is weird. Did anyone die… let alone a “mass” amount of people?
 
RangerGranger said:
****, so the law does exist.

And somewhere along the line the ball was dropped...
Click to expand...


Big difference between law, punishment, and justice.

Go back to public executions. Fast public executions. Jury of peers, and done with that part - no appeals for decades. If an appeal can't be heard in ten days - execute.

But if you're organized, the execution can take place within fifteen minutes of a guilty finding.

And take school children on field trips to witness executions - parents take your children. Show them what happens to bad, violent people - a greater, justice by violence.

Hiding away executions defeats the ENTIRE PRINCIPLE behind executions. Otherwise - let the families of the victims handle things.

And just on another level - vigilantism is highly efficient and effective. Works every time.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top