slug.com slug.com

5 0

We know that many conservative judges in the US subscribe to so-called "originalism": a type of judicial interpretation of the Constitution that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

Now here's the originalist version of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear single-shot black-powder rifles, shall not be infringed.

Matias66 6 May 30
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The fed is on record for taking money from the bank accounts of conservatives. It didn't occur to the Founders to include a clause: "Right to bear money" because this right seemed so obvious that it was unimaginable that it would be infringed.

Democrats are on record for wanting to take away rights. It's an official plank in the party platform. They try to take away any right they can. It isn't about guns. It's about rights.

1

It is very simple.
It is not about the type of weapon at all.
It is about the ABILITY of the militia to stand up to authoritarian rule.
So if a black powder musket is needed…. Then it is a musket.
If an AR-15 is needed because the government has automatic weapons, that is what is meant.
If it is plasma and laser weapons one day, then that is what is needed.

3

@Matias66 @TimTuolomne @Josf-Kelley

The text of the Constitution is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Founding Farmers were smarter than us. We should respect the wisdom of the Constitution.

TimTuolomne is right. The Founding Fathers wrote a document based on principles. They did a damn good job of defining elegant principles.

If you want to change minds, straw-manning doesn't work. You should assume the smartst possible interpretation of what the opponent said, and refute that. This is steel-manning.

Detail: The Puckle gun is not a machine gun. The revolver has to be advanced manually between shots. It's still damn impressive. 11 shots and 125 caliber.

Muzzle-loading muskets don't work well in the rain. The Puckle revolver has waterproof compartments and works in the rain. At a public trial, the Puckle gun produced 9 shots per minute in hard driving rain. Musketeers can do at best 3 shots per minute, in dry conditions.

A bow and quiver ensemble would work better than muskets in the rain. Fast reloading.

3

But not THE 2nd Amendment. Only your version. The Founders were excellent at not including minutiae as that, and sticking to clear principles.

That is precisely why arguments that the Constitution is out of date are futile. The principles are universal, and timeless, much the way are the great philosophies on which the Constitution rests.

One has to construct a straw-man version as you have done to make the case. Essentially a falsehood.

If you have to lie to make your case, you have no case and you are wrong. Intelligence admits wrong. Foolishness can not and will compound it.

Exactly: the authors of the Constitution laid out some principles, but these should be interpreted by each generation (and put into laws) according to the situation that has changed in the meantime.
To say that citizens have the right to bear arms does not say anything about the kind of arms one can legally own (live grenades? flame-throwers? Machine guns? Mini nukes?...)
But that's what originalists deny: they demand that this text should be exactly interpreted as it was meant 230 years ago. But when James Madison et alii wrote "arms" : what did they have in mind? Certainly not a mass-murder machine like the AR-15

@Matias66 From your reply, I conclude that you have not read the Federalist papers, or any of the philosophers on which the Constitution was based. I believe that when you study those philosophies for understanding, you may amend your statement significantly.

And if this is true, you are in good company. Not more than 3 in 100 people I know have even read the Constitution, nor are they are familiar with the concepts, and roughly half of the remainder still believe their knowledge of philosophy is sufficient without ever studying the subject. As an engineer, I have also experienced the same thing by those who think they can understand engineering without ever studying the subject. That kind of ignorance is incapable of understanding that there are things they can't know without effort.

Here's a question for you: What modification of the Constitution according to "the situation that has changed in the meantime" would destroy the characteristic that limits government, and not the rights of the people? Did you know that there is no other form of government that is limited by their Consititution? Every other government limits the rights of the people.

@TimTuolomne I do not need to study the Federalist papers in depth in order to know that the authors of the 2nd Amerndment did not mean "AR-15" when they wrote "arms".
If you are so smart, please enlighten me: why are you allowed to buy an assault rifle, but not a machine gun or a live grenade? They are all "arms".

@Matias66 Ask the Progressives. They are the ones who disregard the Constitution.

@TimTuolomne The Progressives are innocent about this mess....
The Constitution does not tell you anything about the difference between an assault rifle and a machine gun, and the reason why you can buy and own the former, but not the latter (the Founding Fathers could not dream of either!) . After all, both are "arms", so according to the text (!), you should be able to own both.
So what's YOUR answer ?

@Matias66 I did answer you. The Constitution is not specific. Only those willing to assert something as law, which is not law, have created the difference: Progressives.

@TimTuolomne The stance of the Progressives you hate so much is quite rational: That a document that was written more than 200 years ago needs to be interpreted (!) again and again ... according to the NEW situation 100, 150, 200.... years later.
What does "well-regulated militia" mean today? What does "arms" mean today? Pistols? Rifles? Semi-automatic rifles? Automatic rifles? Grenades? Should there be checks (so that for ex. no convicted criminal can legally own weapons?) and so on ...
No answer to these - and other - questions - is self-evident. But those conservatives who subscribe to "originalism" think it is.

@Matias66 Don’t tell me who I hate. You are uninformed on the subject, and that leads me to wonder on what else. Just because I believe the Constitution has adequately covered the subject does not automatically make it wrong. You have offered zero proof of your assertions that it can’t apply today as written. Taking a course in logic and applying it to the Constitution phrase by phrase will teach you that. But anyone with no intention of seeing both sides of the question will do no such a thing.

“Its easy to take sides when you only know one of them.”

@TimTuolomne You obviously hate liberals, and you obviously hate me because you believe that I am one of them. That´s the only possible reason why you are spitting in my face although I have done you no wrong.
Unfortunately, you never address the arguments I raise.
I'm off now.
(Edit: Maybe you should block me? Would be better fror your blood pressure)

@Matias66 Again you are mistaken. Perhaps you believe you have the right to tell someone else what they believe. I will not tell you what you believe, except by what you say, because I believe I have no right to tell others what is their adult responsibility. We only do that for our own children.

@Matias66
Come on Mattias.
At no point did Tim indicate he hates liberals or you.

And at no point did he “spit in your face “.
The only one here whose blood pressure went up was yours.

If you want to be one of the few on this forum worth discussing things, don’t do ad hominem attacks please.

0

This is a topic that ought to gain more currency because it is a key principle battle in defense against offenders.

"We know that many conservative judges in the US subscribe to so-called "originalism"..."

We may not know that "judges" are either strictly contained within a moral box or they are free to commit any crime that pleases them with impunity.

I know this, but "we" may not.

"...a type of judicial interpretation of the Constitution that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written."

The original federal Constitution gave no authority to annihilate it to anyone.

The second National Constitution annihilated the original Federal Constitution.

I found more than a few confessions, here is one:

Papers of Dr. James McHenry at the Federal Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."

Original jurisdiction judges according to common law have no adjudicating powers to overrule independent grand jurors or independent trial jurors in County jurisdictions.

The law of the land, by precedent, statute, and law prescribes independent county grand jury powers and independent trial jury powers over and above any powers given to any judges.

That was cleared up in more than a few cases, here is one:

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject."

People make mistakes, including judges and presidents. M'Kean was a President during the Federal period, after serving as a judge.

Jefferson was a President during the Nation-State period, after the federated republics were annihilated by treasonous frauds.

Here is an obvious mistake by Jefferson:

Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
1781
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly. In civil matters these justices have jurisdiction in all cases of whatever value, not appertaining to the department of the admiralty. This jurisdiction is twofold. If the matter in dispute be of less value than 4 1/6 dollars, a single member may try it at any time and place within his county, and may award execution on the goods of the party cast. If it be of that or greater value, it is determinable before the county court, which consists of four at the least of those justices, and assembles at the court-house of the county on a certain day in every month. From their determination, if the matter be of the value of ten pounds sterling, or concern the title or bounds of lands, an appeal lies to one of the superior courts."

Independent County Grand Jurors by precedent, statute, and law validate accusations and move defendants and private prosecutors to a County Criminal Court of Law for adjudication by independent trial jurors.

Grand Jurors do not try the case before trial jurors try the case, as explained by M'Kean for the reasons given, so Jefferson is demonstrably wrong about the divisions of powers given to the people as the people volunteer as independent County grand jurors and independent County trial jurors as patriots drain the swamp when the swamp creatures fill the swamp.

Now here's the originalist version of the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear single-shot black-powder rifles, shall not be infringed."

Swamp creatures annihilated the federated republics in order to create a swamp for swamp creatures to do as they please to anyone and do so with immunities from prosecution.

Those against those swamp creatures included George Mason:

Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
1788 Elliot 3:89, 430--36, 439--42
[6 June]
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"

We may not know a lot of the dirty dealings of swamp creatures in American history, but the valuable, defensive, moral, lawful, legal, precedents, statutes, and laws that can be used by the patriotic volunteers in each of over 3,000 County jurisdictions afford to the people a means by which the government can return to the rightful place it was contained into before the swamp creatures annihilated it.

Anyone alive in any County jurisdiction, if able, can volunteer as a private prosecutor and by precedent, statute, and law that independent individual commands all jurisdiction afforded to every lawful, legal, moral volunteer defender with the title Attorney General. The evidence assembled by the prosecutor goes to the County Grand Jury for expedient investigation to establish probable cause to set a County Criminal Court Date where the defendant and the prosecutor state their case before the independent County Trial Jurors for their powers of adjudication.

During due process of law, and within the established boundaries, each individual in turn may command all writs including subpoena, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and even posse comitatus.

Ignorance of the law is a goal shared by criminals and victims alike, if it collects dust while clear and present dangers are currently rioting in the blood of the innocent routinely in every county jurisdiction in every federated republic, then whose fault is it?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:341726
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.