Political Roundtable Part XIV

[popper]

...It's certainly possible that I misunderstood cammac's intended meaning. I too suspect he is French Canadian and that might explain some of the communications disconnect.

Yes I've read the Constitution many time. Years ago I even took a semester course on it. No I can't quote the second amendment by heart. I'm old PIF. Sometimes I can't even remember the names of my nieces and nephews. I will read everything you linked to once my out of town guests depart. Yes there are SC decisions that I disagree with.

Old? You don't know from old, Popper. I'm way older than you. By the time you look at those links I gave you, I'll have forgotten I ever linked to them!

Here is the entirety of the Second Amendment: "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."

There was no intention of any kind in respect to an individual. The founders knew how to write, they knew the phrase "an individual" for example. The "right" they discuss is a right of "the people" as a whole.

Again, I don't mean that the founders didn't think individuals should be able to own guns -- the need for that at the time was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning! Nor, once again, would they even have been able to imagine e.g. a multi-shot repeating rifle -- let alone an attack weapon of the kind the NRA would now like you to think it should be your right to carry around.

To get what I mean a little more clerly, e.g. take a look at the First Amendment. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers considered "freedom of speech" a different matter from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." Every individual has "freedom of speech." The other is a "right of the people" -- it is in respect of something they would do together. As a people, in their free states (the ex-colonies) they have the right to form militias (i.e. "to keep and bear arms"). & as a people, they have the right to peaceably assemble.

The framers felt they needed to articulate the freedom of an individual ("freedom of speech") & also the related freedom "of the people" ("the right of the people peaceably to asemble, etc.").

So, if you really do want the Constitution to be interpreted based on original intention, I'm afraid you are going to become an enemy of the NRA, aren't you?

The SC analyzed the issues surrounding the wording of the amendment. As far as I know, the majority concluded the wording was consistent with the right of individuals to own personal firearms separate and apart from militias. In your example above you mention an individual's right to free speech as distinguished against the people's right to assemble. I'm not sure I understand your point. In both cases individuals have the right to speak freely and petition the govt (as an individual). You may be trying to make a different point though - not sure.

I haven't read the Heller decision nor the dissent. But what part of the textual/word analyses do you think the majority got wrong? Regarding making new enemies (nra), no thanks. I've made more than enough already on this thread.

[payitforward]

I think everyone that participates in this thread knows I'm a conservative. Never tried to hide it or candy coat any position that I feel strongly about. Just for the record I will repeat some general observations that I have made over and over again here.

Bush was a sh*tty president that damaged this country
Obama was a sh*tty president that also damaged this country
Trump is a buffoon who will damage this country
Congress is comprised mostly of spineless statist. There is a minority though that I have great respect for. Recently retired Tom Coburn for example,
Generally I think R's create X damage and D's create 2X damage.

So there you have it.

And you thought we disagreed about everything! Hah! I agree whole-heartedly with at least 2 of the 5 statements above. That's a pretty good hit ratio! You'd like it if it were 3-point shots, wouldn't you? 40% -- come on!

To be serious for a moment, or at least a little more serious, I really don't understand your final point. What is the "damage" you think Republicans do & that Dems do two times more of?

Would you call the Civil Rights Act an example of damage done by Democrats? (or Republicans for that matter) How about the Voting Rights Act?

Just as a matter of curiosity, when you call yourself "a conservative," what do you mean? I'm not asking you to tell me "I support this or that person," what I'd like to know is what it means to be "a conservative" when you describe yourself that way.

I don't mean to ask in a challenging way. It's just that I often find people describe themselves as "conservative," & then I see them espouse notions that, to me at least, seem anything but conservative.

[popper]

I think everyone that participates in this thread knows I'm a conservative. Never tried to hide it or candy coat any position that I feel strongly about. Just for the record I will repeat some general observations that I have made over and over again here.

Bush was a sh*tty president that damaged this country
Obama was a sh*tty president that also damaged this country
Trump is a buffoon who will damage this country
Congress is comprised mostly of spineless statist. There is a minority though that I have great respect for. Recently retired Tom Coburn for example,
Generally I think R's create X damage and D's create 2X damage.

So there you have it.

And you thought we disagreed about everything! Hah! I agree whole-heartedly with at least 2 of the 5 statements above. That's a pretty good hit ratio! You'd like it if it were 3-point shots, wouldn't you? 40% -- come on!

To be serious for a moment, or at least a little more serious, I really don't understand your final point. What is the "damage" you think Republicans do & that Dems do two times more of?

Would you call the Civil Rights Act an example of damage done by Democrats? (or Republicans for that matter) How about the Voting Rights Act?

Just as a matter of curiosity, when you call yourself "a conservative," what do you mean? I'm not asking you to tell me "I support this or that person," what I'd like to know is what it means to be "a conservative" when you describe yourself that way.

I don't mean to ask in a challenging way. It's just that I often find people describe themselves as "conservative," & then I see them espouse notions that, to me at least, seem anything but conservative.

I've spent 7 years on this thread going into the details of the damage done by both parties PIF. I imagine I was approximately twice as critical of the D's as I was compared to the R's. You've already read most of my posts.

Conservative to me means one who conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

So, Illinois now has a budget - well, they have a permanent tax increase with little deficit reduction (compared to what was needed). Illinois has lost 1.22 million people, on net, over the past 16 years - the Detroit effect.

And yet, they are in better shape than Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico has lost near to 10% of its population and doctors are fleeing - more Detroit effect.

Around us, Virginia and Maryland are in pretty decent shape

Fun chart to look at?:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/these-states-are-a-bigger-fiscal-mess-than-illinois.html

[cammac]

...It's certainly possible that I misunderstood cammac's intended meaning. I too suspect he is French Canadian and that might explain some of the communications disconnect.

Yes I've read the Constitution many time. Years ago I even took a semester course on it. No I can't quote the second amendment by heart. I'm old PIF. Sometimes I can't even remember the names of my nieces and nephews. I will read everything you linked to once my out of town guests depart. Yes there are SC decisions that I disagree with.

Old? You don't know from old, Popper. I'm way older than you. By the time you look at those links I gave you, I'll have forgotten I ever linked to them!

Here is the entirety of the Second Amendment: "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."

There was no intention of any kind in respect to an individual. The founders knew how to write, they knew the phrase "an individual" for example. The "right" they discuss is a right of "the people" as a whole.

Again, I don't mean that the founders didn't think individuals should be able to own guns -- the need for that at the time was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning! Nor, once again, would they even have been able to imagine e.g. a multi-shot repeating rifle -- let alone an attack weapon of the kind the NRA would now like you to think it should be your right to carry around.

To get what I mean a little more clerly, e.g. take a look at the First Amendment. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers considered "freedom of speech" a different matter from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." Every individual has "freedom of speech." The other is a "right of the people" -- it is in respect of something they would do together. As a people, in their free states (the ex-colonies) they have the right to form militias (i.e. "to keep and bear arms"). & as a people, they have the right to peaceably assemble.

The framers felt they needed to articulate the freedom of an individual ("freedom of speech") & also the related freedom "of the people" ("the right of the people peaceably to asemble, etc.").

So, if you really do want the Constitution to be interpreted based on original intention, I'm afraid you are going to become an enemy of the NRA, aren't you?

Popper you are seriously deluded in most of your comments constitutions should be living documents not the bible and for you information I attended the College of William and Mary and then got a MBA at Queens University. I'm not French Canadian but love that we are a bilingual country that respects different cultures.

I have lived 50% of my adult life outside of Canada in USA, UK, NZ and China and have a very good idea of what Democratic Republic is with a stress on Democratic. Obviously I am not nonsensical in believing places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy. Nor do I think China is democratic but it does have many similarities to the USA. I have had the privilege of visiting well over 70 countries on all continents so I assume I have a more worldly view than you do not a isolationist view of manifest destiny.

The late Nelson Mandela looked at all the worlds constitutions to fashion South Africa's and selected the Canadian one as the most appropriate. Somehow you can't understand the total dysfunction of of your current system of government. If you look at the 2nd amendment then people should be allowed firearms as long as they were flintlocks and only if they were regulated militias. Maybe Canadians are different our country was born through a peaceful transition of rule law 150 years ago not through a revolution.

Once a American friend asked me to give a illustration of a prime difference between Canada and USA. The best I could come up with is after "Little Big Horn" the Sioux , Cheyenne and Arapaho fled to Canada. After a peace treaty was negotiated with the USA the tribes returned to the USA with 2 RCMP officers to be met by a number of USA Calvary units. OH the USA really didn't honor the treaty.

[dckingsfan]

The late Nelson Mandela looked at all the worlds constitutions to fashion South Africa's and selected the Canadian one as the most appropriate. Somehow you can't understand the total dysfunction of of your current system of government.

Guess the verdict is still out on that one Personally, I think they would have been better off with the US system in that particular case. But for all the good Mandela did - putting the ANC in the place it is today wasn't so helpful.

[JWizmentality]

Welp...now we have collusion.

Can't wait to see the spin on this one. So far today from State television FoxNews...but but Hillary. But so far, the most entertaining is watching talking heads try to design a new definition for collusion. "He was a private citizen...private citizens can't collude!"

[JWizmentality]

“Fox & Friends” has withdrawn a report about former FBI Director James Comey that was debunked hours earlier.


Nearly 15 hours after reporting that Comey revealed “top secret” information in his personal memos about his meetings with President Donald Trump, the show admitted the notes “did not have top secret info.”

#FakeNews!!

But why no one fired though? You know, like what CNN did? Where's the conservative outrage?


I'll wait.

[closg00]

Welp...now we have collusion.

Can't wait to see the spin on this one. So far today from State television FoxNews...but but Hillary. But so far, the most entertaining is watching talking heads try to design a new definition for collusion. "He was a private citizen...private citizens can't collude!"

Indeed, we have come a long way from the early days of his scandal when you had to convince some people that there was smoke here, and there is a smoldering kindling wood-fire warming-up nicely. My bet is that Flynn is at the center, the middle man if you will between the Russia effort, and the Trump campaign itself...may be difficult to prove, but Flynn and Manafort may be going down and Trump will be impeached on obstruction of justice.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[I_Like_Dirt]

Conservative to me means one who conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well.

Why proven to work well? See, it's adding that subjective bit that gives you away all the time. Largely, conservative tends to mean: a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't like newer ideas and find yourself believing they're always wrong and we should go back to older ideas because you feel they're better/more proven, you're a conservative.

As for whether or not they work well, that's entirely another matter. I mean, working well is relative. It doesn't mean there aren't ideas that could work better. It also doesn't mean that those same ideas worked well for everyone, or that they will continue to work well moving forward. Sometimes new ideas will work better, sometimes they won't, and sometimes older ideas will continue to work well going forward and sometimes they won't. Throwing in the caveat that older institutions/habits have been proven to work well is making a ton of assumptions and really just demonstrating conservative values from the outset.

[dckingsfan]

Dirt, I think that there are various levels of conservatism like their are various levels of liberalism. Note the arguments below (which aren't my opinions per se).

Example: A fiscal conservative would say that having a sustainable fiscal model works well. A fiscal conservative feels that a progressive would say, just spend the $$s and we will figure it out later - a newer idea if you will.

But you can be a fiscal conservative and social liberal, no?

Example: A social conservative would have specific stances that they believe work for society. They may feel that changes to those norms upset the balance of power that they feel have worked well for them (or their group).

But you can be a social liberal and still not want change. See liberals and entitlements (now that it is the norm).

So, since both conservatives and liberals defend their own traditional values, I think your last sentence would be false, right?

[popper]

...It's certainly possible that I misunderstood cammac's intended meaning. I too suspect he is French Canadian and that might explain some of the communications disconnect.

Yes I've read the Constitution many time. Years ago I even took a semester course on it. No I can't quote the second amendment by heart. I'm old PIF. Sometimes I can't even remember the names of my nieces and nephews. I will read everything you linked to once my out of town guests depart. Yes there are SC decisions that I disagree with.

Old? You don't know from old, Popper. I'm way older than you. By the time you look at those links I gave you, I'll have forgotten I ever linked to them!

Here is the entirety of the Second Amendment: "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."

There was no intention of any kind in respect to an individual. The founders knew how to write, they knew the phrase "an individual" for example. The "right" they discuss is a right of "the people" as a whole.

Again, I don't mean that the founders didn't think individuals should be able to own guns -- the need for that at the time was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning! Nor, once again, would they even have been able to imagine e.g. a multi-shot repeating rifle -- let alone an attack weapon of the kind the NRA would now like you to think it should be your right to carry around.

To get what I mean a little more clerly, e.g. take a look at the First Amendment. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers considered "freedom of speech" a different matter from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." Every individual has "freedom of speech." The other is a "right of the people" -- it is in respect of something they would do together. As a people, in their free states (the ex-colonies) they have the right to form militias (i.e. "to keep and bear arms"). & as a people, they have the right to peaceably assemble.

The framers felt they needed to articulate the freedom of an individual ("freedom of speech") & also the related freedom "of the people" ("the right of the people peaceably to asemble, etc.").

So, if you really do want the Constitution to be interpreted based on original intention, I'm afraid you are going to become an enemy of the NRA, aren't you?

Popper you are seriously deluded in most of your comments constitutions should be living documents not the bible and for you information I attended the College of William and Mary and then got a MBA at Queens University. I'm not French Canadian but love that we are a bilingual country that respects different cultures.

I have lived 50% of my adult life outside of Canada in USA, UK, NZ and China and have a very good idea of what Democratic Republic is with a stress on Democratic. Obviously I am not nonsensical in believing places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy. Nor do I think China is democratic but it does have many similarities to the USA. I have had the privilege of visiting well over 70 countries on all continents so I assume I have a more worldly view than you do not a isolationist view of manifest destiny.

The late Nelson Mandela looked at all the worlds constitutions to fashion South Africa's and selected the Canadian one as the most appropriate. Somehow you can't understand the total dysfunction of of your current system of government. If you look at the 2nd amendment then people should be allowed firearms as long as they were flintlocks and only if they were regulated militias. Maybe Canadians are different our country was born through a peaceful transition of rule law 150 years ago not through a revolution.

Once a American friend asked me to give a illustration of a prime difference between Canada and USA. The best I could come up with is after "Little Big Horn" the Sioux , Cheyenne and Arapaho fled to Canada. After a peace treaty was negotiated with the USA the tribes returned to the USA with 2 RCMP officers to be met by a number of USA Calvary units. OH the USA really didn't honor the treaty.

Cammac, if the contract (constitution) between the people and the federal government is living (meaning it can be altered by the whim of nine unelected judges without the peoples’ blessing) then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. You would never enter into a contract knowing that the terms and conditions could be changed at a later date without your permission. There is a process for changing our constitution and it has happened 27 times so far in our history.

There are factions within our country that want certain changes to the constitution but those changes are not supported by a sufficient number of voters/politicians/states. Therefore they want to appoint judges that endorse the living constitution idea so that they can enact changes without the necessary permission from the people.

Regarding the Democratic Republic issue it’s been pointed out to me that I misunderstood your intent when posting about it. I responded to what I thought was the literal meaning of your post. In retrospect, I should have had the common sense to read between the lines. Sorry bro.

I don’t hold an opinion on the breadth and scope of the second amendment so not sure why you brought that up.

Your comment about me not understanding the “total dysfunction of our cuurent system” is inaccurate. Not only do I understand much of it, I have been posting about it here for seven years.

You may very well have a more worldly view than I do cammac. You’ve certainly lived in more places. I lived and worked only in the US, Western Europe and Central and South America.

[TGW]

Social Security has been proven to work well, which means it decreased poverty of our elderly and provided health and life insurance to those who couldn't normally afford a private plan.

Two in five elderly Americans would be poor without Social Security (as opposed to 1 out 5...our current rate). The program lifts 14.5 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Makes sense to "conserve" that, huh?

[popper]

Social Security has been proven to work well, which means it decreased poverty of our elderly and provided health and life insurance to those who couldn't normally afford a private plan.

Two in five elderly Americans would be poor without Social Security (as opposed to 1 out 5...our current rate). The program lifts 14.5 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Makes sense to "conserve" that, huh?

Yes it does except that the disability part of it needs serious reform and the funding part of it will need to be increased in the future. Also, I'd like to see a lockbox so politicians can't raid it for other purposes.

[payitforward]

Here is the entirety of the Second Amendment: "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."

There was no intention of any kind in respect to an individual. The founders knew how to write, they knew the phrase "an individual" for example. The "right" they discuss is a right of "the people" as a whole.

Again, I don't mean that the founders didn't think individuals should be able to own guns -- the need for that at the time was so obvious that it was not worth mentioning! Nor, once again, would they even have been able to imagine e.g. a multi-shot repeating rifle -- let alone an attack weapon of the kind the NRA would now like you to think it should be your right to carry around.

To get what I mean a little more clerly, e.g. take a look at the First Amendment. It reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The framers considered "freedom of speech" a different matter from "the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." Every individual has "freedom of speech." The other is a "right of the people" -- it is in respect of something they would do together. As a people, in their free states (the ex-colonies) they have the right to form militias (i.e. "to keep and bear arms"). & as a people, they have the right to peaceably assemble.

The framers felt they needed to articulate the freedom of an individual ("freedom of speech") & also the related freedom "of the people" ("the right of the people peaceably to asemble, etc.").

So, if you really do want the Constitution to be interpreted based on original intention, I'm afraid you are going to become an enemy of the NRA, aren't you?

In your example above you mention an individual's right to free speech as distinguished against the people's right to assemble. I'm not sure I understand your point. In both cases individuals have the right to speak freely and petition the govt (as an individual). You may be trying to make a different point though - not sure.

I haven't read the Heller decision nor the dissent. But what part of the textual/word analyses do you think the majority got wrong? Regarding making new enemies (nra), no thanks. I've made more than enough already on this thread.

What I meant about the bolded section above is that the framers felt they needed to establish two rights in this amendment: the right of free speech (a right had by every individual) & the right to assemble (a right had by "the people" -- i.e. the communal body).

I only mentioned this to point out that the framers felt the need to make this distinction: i.e. between a right of individuals & a right of "the people" -- a communal right, something the people as a community, a communal whole, possessed or could do.

This distinction is important in understanding "the original intention" of the 2d Amendment, where the right to keep & bear arms is explicitly called a "right of the people" -- the same phrase used in Amendment 1 ("right of the people peaceably to assemble") where it's clear that this is a right different from the right of an individual to free speech. Thus, the original intention of the Second Amendment is clear. & it has nothing to do with an individual's right to own a gun.

Hence, if you want the Constitution to be interpreted w/in the scope of original intention, you don't get the individual's right to own a gun from the Constitution. You'll need another amendment.

Yet, you are also right that

The SC analyzed the issues surrounding the wording of the amendment. As far as I know, the majority concluded the wording was consistent with the right of individuals to own personal firearms separate and apart from militias.

& that's because the Constitution is & always has been, to use a phrase you don't like, a "living document." It is reinterpreted constantly to reflect change.

Not that there are no limits on it. But the limits depend 100% on the minds of the 9 SC Justices. They & no one else have the final say on what the Constitution says/means. It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. There is no judgement of its meaning independent of the Supreme Court.

& that meaning definitely changes. To take a significant example: much of what gets treated as free speech in our era would have gotten a person arrested 100 years ago. You might want to keep that in mind!!

[dobrojim]

The founders had a deep and abiding mistrust and fear of standing armies hence the prohibition
on funding an army for more than 2 years. This arose in no small part from their experience with the British army
of occupation. Acknowledging a need for national self defense they saw the state militias, in today's
terms, the state national guard, as the source of the needed defense. This whole mindset needs
to be understood when reading the 2nd amendment.

My personal view, you can privately own all the muskets and flintlocks you want.

[payitforward]

... if the contract (constitution) between the people and the federal government is living (meaning it can be altered by the whim of nine unelected judges without the peoples’ blessing) then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. You would never enter into a contract knowing that the terms and conditions could be changed at a later date without your permission. There is a process for changing our constitution and it has happened 27 times so far in our history.

But, the Constitution is not a "contract... between the people and the federal government," Popper. A contract is an agreement between two or more already existing entities. The Constitution writes down the terms on which the people established a federal government.

I suppose you could think of it as a contract among all the people, but I don't think I've ever read anything from a legal scholar or US historian that so describes it.

Or maybe you could think of it as a contract among the states (i.e. the former colonies). But I don't think so. & again have never read anything wanting to view it that way. (& if it were, wouldn't you then require a new state to sign the contract upon coming into existence -- didn't happen.)

As well, of course, a contract always contains a reference to terms that would render it void & usually also mentions conditions that would allow a signatory to be released from the contract. Not the Constitution. There's no way for a state to leave the union.

There are factions within our country that want certain changes to the constitution but those changes are not supported by a sufficient number of voters/politicians/states. Therefore they want to appoint judges that endorse the living constitution idea so that they can enact changes without the necessary permission from the people....

Why don't we use the word "people" rather than "factions" for a minute? There are people in the US who want all kinds of things to happen. Some, e.g., want to restrict the right of poor people, especially poor black people, to vote. They pass local laws, which Appellate courts (&, ultimately, the SC if necessary) strike down.

Those people don't want the SC to rule the way it does. They want it to rule in a different direction. In which case, naturally, they want justices appointed to the SC who they think will rule the way they want.

Of course, it's possible there are people who want... I don't know, lets say "illegal immigrants" to vote. If the SC were somehow to be faced with this issue (ok, that's inconceivable -- but bear with me), it would obviously rule against a local law somewhere that allowed it to happen.

"Those people don't (or, in this case, would not) want the SC to rule the way it does (the way it would). They (would) want it to rule in a different direction. In which case, naturally, they (would) want justices appointed to the SC who they think will (i.e. would) rule the way they want."

Popper, the whole point of the court system is to deal with competing interests & desires. & every single SC Justice "endorses the living constitution idea" -- if by that you mean they try to figure out how to rule on subjects that it would have been utterly inconceivable for the framers to think about.

Do you want the courts not to rule about airspace? That above your house or the rest of it (e.g. used by commercial airlines)? We do need law about that -- & it's law that climbs inevitably to questions of constitutionality that "original intention" can say nothing about! We can't go to an original intention. Note that this doesn't mean we can't ask "what would Madison & Monroe have thought about 'X' had they been forced to understand it & think about its legal ramifications?" In fact, that's what it means to talk about a living document. It's also all it means.

Airspace, however complex, is nothing compared to what we face now & what's coming.

Think about drones in the air above you. Can they take your picture? No framer would have understood the phrase "take your picture," Popper. Can they "share" it? There was no use of the word "share" along those lines back then: "share" meant "divide in parts." Can they publish it on the Internet -- whooooaaaa!! I'm not taking on the task of explaining the Internet (nor "publish" as we mean the word today) to Thomas Jefferson!! & who is "they?" Who owns those drones? Does it matter? Can it be established clearly? Etc.

Over the next 20 years, we'll have another 20 billion devices connected to the Internet. You want all that to be the wild West? Or will we need the realm of law to encompass that world somehow?

You get me? The "life" of the Constitution has just begun -- or at least so we must all hope!

[payitforward]

The founders had a deep and abiding mistrust and fear of standing armies hence the prohibition
on funding an army for more than 2 years. This arose in no small part from their experience with the British army
of occupation. Acknowledging a need for national self defense they saw the state militias, in today's
terms, the state national guard, as the source of the needed defense. This whole mindset needs
to be understood when reading the 2nd amendment.

Yup, but lets not call it a "mindset" -- lets call it "original intention." That was the original intention of the 2d Amendment.

It had nada to do with individuals owning firearms. Like you, the framers thought:

...you can privately own all the muskets and flintlocks you want.

[JWizmentality]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Don't know why I find this so funny. Poor guy.