What a crock. Why would anyone watch that show calling itself News. At this point it's just Looney Tunes for those without critical thinking skills.
It was founded on WHAT WAS WRITTEN - not what you THINK they meant....the written word is what matters......the rest is made up bullshit to fit a narrative. DD
If this is real… you never know… this lady is too stupid to be in office. We were already aware of that, but my god.
Yes, to let people know that the people from whom the militia is to be drawn should be well armed and ready to be called up and go to war. Fortunately, they also put in that it was not the militia that had the right to keep and bear Arms, but the people. Preposterous. So Trump's actions on January 6, more or less harmful than the guy who shot David Dorn? They did indeed want an amendable Constitution. They even put into the text of the Constitution exactly how to go about amending it. They would be horrified by what the courts have done to the Constitution, not the decisions of the last few years, but the decisions for much of the 20th century that completely annihilated a government of limited, enumerated powers and replaced it with the words are meaningless and we will implement whatever we think is good policy at the time. Utter claptrap. The Constitution was ratified on a structure of laws that already existed, both English Common Law and state laws. The words must of course be given their meaning, but their meaning must be understood based on the circumstances of their writing and ratification. The plain meaning of the words presumes that the rights already exist prior to ratification of the Constitution. There is not one founder that thought the Constitution was creating rights from nothing.
I'm a bit confused (nothing new there), but a lot of Republican talking heads are pointing out this guy was mentally ill or taking drugs or whatever, yet they vote against gun laws that could possibly prevent him buying a gun. Also, 3 months prior to obtaining his license, he threatened to kill his family and had 16 knives and a sword confiscated, yet that didn't set off any alarms.
That's a misinterpretation based on my readings from Jefferson among others. They were focused on making sure that the US did NOT have a standing federal army during times of peace because they were fearful of a federal army that can be controlled by a single governing entity and not be representative of the people. So they are saying here that there is a right to security but that right is through the state militias which in modern times means the national guard essentially. Is there a difference between Militia's and every citizen??... not through the eyes of the framers BECAUSE they saw the militia/national guard as a representative of the people gathering their muskets to fight the Brits or whomever when they needed to defend their land. Now we know that not every American is going to either fight themselves, or have a member of their household go fight the Red Coats when they invade so we are represented differently now via Militias/National Guard. The term "Well Regulated" was put there first so there's an emphasis on defining militias in the future based on what made sense. Right now it doesn't make sense to view the Dobro Household as a standing army on it's own where in proportion we have the need to be at scale militarily with a platoon of Russian infantry. The Dobro Household doesn't need nuclear warheads because Kim Jung has nuclear warheads. Any rational reader of the 2nd amendment will see the logic here in the framers clearly stating the words "WELL REGULATED" smack dab in the first sentence to make this point. Does that mean the Dobro Household doesn't have the right to defend themselves??... of course not. But it's to reasonable scale. We have a right to have security through many different means such as local police, national guard, now a federal military, and yes... personal security which could include some home security measures such as regulated firearms. However the Dobro Household now Dobro himself does not NEED a ballistic missile because Kim Jung has missiles, and might invade. Back when the Red Coats would invade they had muskets and cannons, and so militias needed muskets and cannons. To scale now neither you or I need machine guns with 100 round magazines IMO, and we need to regulate responsibility and training like we do with automobiles. Is it THAT unreasonable to have this interpretation??? The interpretation many modern right wingers now believe through lies is that the 2nd amendment is intended to allow every single American the right to other throw a government that they disapprove of.... which is nonsense. From Jefferson to Hamilton to Adams, all of them were fairly in line with the notion that we should be drafting a constitution that PROTECTED against coups not the other way around which is the modern right winger lie that the 2nd amendment is there so you and I can just raise hell against the federal government if we don't like whose in power. The fact that Trump's speech is even debated as dangerous while the rights of the gun that shot David Dorn isn't is a problem. That's my point. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, but when it comes to criminality, that speech is a microcosm in comparison to his pressure put on state representatives to overturn the election results, the potential organizing of violent neo nazi groups (need full evidence on this of course), and the actions that were taken to stage a overthrow of the electoral counting culminate in obvious sedition. Going down the road of debating Trump's 1st amendment rights in the speech at the Elipse is a distraction to focus on one area that MAGA folks think they can win the argument over while overlooking the mountain of crap Trump laid on the Constitution in the weeks leading up to that speech, and afterwards. Yes they did. We can agree on that. Hopefully we both agree that it's a problem that people now want to act as "originalists" where we have to abide by 18th century interpretations, and live in a world where muskets are now equivalent to bazookas because we have to interpret equality of any and all weaponry. I think they would be horrified by the courts and especially Congress yes. I think they'd see what we all should see which is the SCOTUS rulings that injected money into our politics that welcomed wholesale corruption which then froze Congress from ever passing anything meaningful from that point on because they were bought off. Congress should be legislating in the best interest of the people instead of the billionaires that give them the most money. That we should all be able to agree on and is the single biggest cancer on our Republic. Congress ignoring their duties leads then to SCOTUS being left to think their job is now to step in and govern like Kings, and leaves the Executive Branch to then just do what Obama and Trump then did to just fire off EO after EO that they knew wouldn't be held up in court, but at least showed their voters that they cared.
Horse HOCKEY - we took what we want from those documents and edited the parts we did not like out, and added things to them that we did want. I don't give two ***** what the Federalist papers proport or any other pre-existing document, they are NOT relevent in law, in this country. The constitution is. The RIGHTS in the constitution are the only ones that matter as WRITTEN the rest is made up bullshit to fit a narrative. And those are meant to be adjusted and changed for modern times. Here is what the AUTHOR of the constitution says about that. DD
There's actually a good point here in that what isn't written in the Constitution (IE Federalist Papers) bears equal weight to the words because interpretation is what really matters. To that point, in 200 years from now will those American citizens have to decipher rulings from this court because of some BS writings of Clarence Thomas for the Heritage Foundation?? Of course not. The Framers writings outside of the Constitution are interesting but if the Constitution needs that much explaining in certain areas than that alone tells us all we need to know about the need to amend to clarify for modern times. The writings of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton shouldn't be treated as the word of God... when you need God to say exactly what you want him to say to suit your argument. Those guys wrote ALOT of stuff so you can interpret alot of different things from alot of different guys, and it SHOULD NOT be the way we settle Constitutional debates alone because The Constitution ALONE should settle it itself.
Yes. I’m just pointing out that she thought that photoshop was real when it wasn’t even a good photoshop. You can see the cut lines.
The ****ed up thing is that's it's not enough for certain people to win newly created and expanded rights, like when Scalia created the individual right to gun ownership - a doctrine that didn't exist for 200 years - and is now recognized as having been created by Heller v. DC in 2008. But, you have to pretend like this right always magically existed (along with all the other rights that the MAGAterian movement want, which also secretly exist, and all the ones they don't want, like Privacy, which secretly does not exist) - or else they will get very upset and say things like "Dred Scott created gun rights" (?!?) So, you not only have to live in a world with disastrous gun policies juiced by the Supreme Courts inventions - you can't even note it. The authoritarianism is hard to detect isn't it!
Our country sucks, it is the ONLY country having mass murders by Assault weapons - which there is zero need for any citizen to own. We can't be reasonable because 35% of the population has lied and cheated their way to control and now we are stuck with runaway capitalism destroying the very earth we are living on, and people killing each other because they have easy access to weapons of mass destruction. DD
