05-15-2017, 11:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2017, 11:41 PM by Eric the Green.)
If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.
Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.
The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.
Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.
I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."
This is just more conversation derailment into the never-ending gun debate. The point was about a coup or revolution for or against Trump.
As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.
Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.
The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.
Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.
I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."
This is just more conversation derailment into the never-ending gun debate. The point was about a coup or revolution for or against Trump.
As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.