I am quite certain that the framers didn't put well regulated in the Second Amendment to stop the Dobro Household from having nuclear warheads. When the Red Coats had muskets and cannons, the people could have muskets and cannons. Therefore, if Kim Jong Un has tanks and submarines, the people can have...? Certainly the framers were very concerned about the federal government growing out of control (which they obviously should have been, because it has). Jefferson famously wrote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He wrote this of Shays Rebellion, an actual uprising against the United States. The tree of liberty... (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello No, Jefferson was not of the opinion that the people should be disarmed and held at the mercy of state militias. All of those other things you mentioned (organizing, pressuring, etc.) are also speech. Speech is dangerous if used improperly, just like weapons. We choose to allow freedom in both instances because he who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither. If we can agree that they told us exactly how to amend the Constitution, why would they do that if what they really meant is to reinterpret it to mean whatever you think the good public policy is now? Most of the time, Congress shouldn't be legislating at all, is the big issue. They were mandated to do a list of seventeen things and nothing else. If they stuck to that list, no one would bother injecting money into national politics. I agree, but I think we have radically different ideas of what each of those things mean.
Funny thing is . . .. If The "Framers" were to sit and Talk to a Modern person . . . They might need a fricking translator The Language and context of things have changed so much (Some people need Translators to talk to English people. . . imagine them talking to someone using 200 yr old English) Rocket River
Honestly...... the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the American people is the unreasonable lionization of the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers. The reality is that those that wrote the US Constitution did not and do not represent the American people. It was written and collaborated entirely with ONLY men..... Second they were ONLY white men and third they were ONLY white men that owned property. Right off the bat, 51% of the population isn't represented....... then there is the fact that over half of the remaining population is represented.... so they now represent 25% of the population....... take out property ownership and we are down below 1/4th representation. Then there is the fact that they wrote the documents about a county that was 1/5 the size it is now, and was 250 years ago.... When it comes to the Supreme Court....... it was ALL white men until 1967...... and this same supposed sacred Court denied basic rights to all women, allowed slavery of humans...... supported the sterilization of what they called "idiots" and "morons", believed that it was fine to put Japanese people in internment camps and numerous other stupid and wrong things like think it is A-OK to arm everyone even when tens of thousands of Americans die from fire arms every day. Going back and looking for obscure references to "militia" and "arms" is just stupid and a waste of time and has no real relevance.... the "originalist" argument is so flawed. If Clarence Thomas and Amy Barrett are such "originalists", they need to step down because Thomas' ass would be in chains and Barrett would be in the home. This is the same absurdity as Christians pointing to the Bible to excuse their hatred of gays or women..... and Muslims claiming that some obscure hadith justifies butt ******* a 13 year old girl because Muhammad ibn Abdullah 1,600 years ago said it was okay. It is all stupid, it is all fundamentalist absurdity following people from a different era that were very flawed. I don't care if Madison or Adams or Morris thought it was a good idea to have guns in rural America 250 years ago, it should have no bearing on what we do now. The reality is that all the Justices know that, they just look for something in the past to justify their current positions. The good news is that younger people are figuring out that this is all a bunch of BS and a way to control people.
A lot of the "Framers" wouldn't want to talk to an American now because they would statistically be a white man. These men were brilliant 250 years ago, but they don't represent the America we live in and they were very flawed.
That is why they included the amendment process, so that as the country changed, the Constitution could be changed along with it. They had the foresight to think that the Constitution would need to be updated to advance with the times. Not that we would ignore the Constitution or reinterpret what the words mean, but that we have a process by which to change it, one that is fairly clear and concise and requires that most people agree to the changes.
related Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks: The Problem is the Constitution Which Enslaves Us https://jonathanturley.org/2022/07/...roblem-is-the-constitution-which-enslaves-us/ excerpt: It appears that the Constitution became the problem when a majority of justices dared to follow an opposing interpretation. more at the link
More at link. I wonder if any posters present could at least empathize with say a Native American that experienced genocide or a human slave alive during any point of America's inception, that would want to rip up the Constitution because you know, they didn't get their way. And that the law of the land at the time interpreted through the Constitution the denial of their basic human rights or even their existence. Or are they just being whiny wokes that didn't exercise the proper government channels that allow for Constitutional Amendments to restore their basic human rights, all because you know, they didn't even get their way? I wonder.
The whole "What the framers wanted" argument is HOGWASH - it is misrepresented throughout the last 200+ years....like a game of telephone. We don't need to worry about what some slave owner wanted 245 years ago to make a decision about today... DD
I had forgotten how tracing a gun isn't as automatic as I would have thought. In a situation where the perp has gotten away, not knowing who to look for could cost more lives. It really is ridiculous that this tracing has to be done in a consuming matter. I would presume it will take lives lost (multiple times, etc) before they will bother changing this. I also am surprised that the father (who I presumed is one of the persons this kid threatened at age 19) would sign off on the guns. From Link: " When a sale goes through, the dealer is required to keep the 4473s on the premises but prohibited from entering them into a database. That means the only way for the ATF to access the information is for the dealer to actually be at his or her place of business and pull the file. “Then it’s up to our agents to find the proprietor,” Kimberly Nerheim, spokeswoman for the ATF Chicago field office, told The Daily Beast while describing the process in general terms. “It’s all very paper-intensive.” Had the dealer been unreachable, the investigation would have been stalled despite ATF’s best efforts. The agents got lucky, and within hours of the shooting they had contacted the dealer, who located a 4473 form that had the corresponding serial number entered in Section A on the first page. " ... " The federal government’s minimum age for purchasing a firearm is 18. But Illinois requires those under 21 to get the written consent of a parent or legal guardian, who must also obtain a FOID card. The state police say the father, Robert Crimo II, signed the form enabling Robert Crimo III to obtain two rifles, even though the son was said to have attempted suicide and to have threatened the family." https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-i...the-parade-massacre-gun-to-robert-bobby-crimo
No we need a Constitution that is reflective of the country. We don't need a 250 year old document written by only white men, and many of which owned black people.
