"I like what you guys did here, but people will misread this a hundred years in the future. Drop the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' bit, and change the 'shall not be infringed' to 'is absolute and may not be restricted in any way for any reason'. Yeah I know it says the same thing, but people in the future are kinda dumb, you gotta be explicit"
Not so sure. I graduated in 2006 and did not learn all the Marxist shit being peddled today. We also had no politicians as retarded as AOC or Omar. I think we are quite a bit more stupid today and social media and smart phones are probably a huge part of that. We might have had the potential to be as stupid but just not fully realized at the time.
I believe the idea was every man had the duty and responsibility of being a trained soldier. Instead of having a professional military that would be subject to the whims of a leader.
What a lot of progressive completely fail to understand is that we are granted liberty but that comes with responsibility and duty. You are correct in that we have a responsibility to defend our natural rights and our ability to do that is not to be infringed. It's really very simple but well passed the ability of lefties to wrap their heads around because of feelings.
They've been doing that for ages. The fact is it just doesn't work. The structure of the 4 sentences they use makes it clear beyond doubt that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed regardless of me acting as part of a militia. The 2A says that a militia is important and then goes on to say that the people's right to arms shall not be infringed. I realize we are dealing with jackasses but it really can't be stated any more clearly than it was. In fact that 4 sentence structure was quite brilliant but probably well above the level of brain power of your average progressive.
Well the average brain power of a progressive was never meant to be able to vote. Universal suffrage was the ultimate mistake that has done us in, along with the removal of God and moral ethics from education. The most evil people are also the most intelligent and educated. By removing ethics and civics from education, both public and private, we were doomed to generations of evil and ignorance.
THIS. They explicitly stated the militia is the whole of the people. Separately, they also advocated for learning how to shoot, especially while young. They didn't have to stress this much, that's how people survived.
It's because people don't learn English in school.
"A well balanced breakfast, necessary for healthy living and state of mind, the right of the people to keep and eat foods, shall not be infringed."
I call it the breakfast argument.
Really, the first part of the 2nd Amendment is so much darker than anyone gives it credit for. What they are saying is "[Because citizens having the arms and training to overthrow a corrupt government is necessary for the citizens to keep their freedoms], the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And seriously: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the strongest statement possible and far stronger than any other amendment.
"Congress shall pass no law" (limits it's imposement upon government)
"shall not be infringed" (strongest possible limitation)
"but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (escape clause)
"but on probable cause" (escape clause)
"without due process of law / without just compensation" (escape clause)
6th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
"than according to the rules of common law" (escape clause)
8th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
Think about that: of the first 8 amendments, 4 have escape clauses, 2 are completely neutral, one has a weakened in its level of restriction upon government, and one solitary amendment goes so far as to say "shall not be INFRINGED", which is the strongest strengthener possible. So fucking strong that even strict scrutiny could reasonably be considered a violation of the Amendment because even strict scrutiny is a level of infringement.
It was written the way it was because it was a warning as well as an amendment: "If you want to keep your freedoms, train up and start stacking bodies when they attempt to restrict your rights to arms."
YES! This is exactly what it says. The more you read of the founding
Fathers, the more their own words define themselves. This should be a requirement for every Supreme Court Judge.
That would be even better. I started by thinking "every Constitutional Judge." Then I changed that, because any Judge dealing with matters of any Constitution is a Supreme Court Judge.
There's no reason Judges who don't deal with the Constitution at all shouldn't also be better read on our founding Fathers than I am. And it does take a lot of reading to get familiar with their take on things. Not only are they nuanced, but their positions change throughout their lives, like most people.
This would be a good time to point out that our one vote is MOST important when it goes for a Judge, and possibly for a County Sheriff. Most people who do vote for a Judge know little to nothing about the people on the ballot, yet that Judge will impact the community moreso than perhaps any other Official.
Not to discourage anyone from voting for DJT, but our one vote there is a much smaller % of the total votes. Lots of Judges are elected with few total votes.
"I like what you guys did here, but people will misread this a hundred years in the future. Drop the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' bit, and change the 'shall not be infringed' to 'is absolute and may not be restricted in any way for any reason'. Yeah I know it says the same thing, but people in the future are kinda dumb, you gotta be explicit"
20 years ago we couldn't have imagined how dumb society would be. Reality TV then Social Media did us in.
BRAWNDO
You like money too? We should hang out.
Water? You mean like from the toilet?
LOLOL.
People were just as stupid in the early 2000s as today.
but now they can get together and be stupid in massive echo chambers of retardation, aka social media.
People say that about us, here
Not so sure. I graduated in 2006 and did not learn all the Marxist shit being peddled today. We also had no politicians as retarded as AOC or Omar. I think we are quite a bit more stupid today and social media and smart phones are probably a huge part of that. We might have had the potential to be as stupid but just not fully realized at the time.
Progress! Realize your full potential! Lol
Right, who do we think created that stuff lmao
We’re at a point in time where Cardi B (A stripper rapper) just made a song called WAP, and a week later is interviewing Biden.
Academia is a larger culprit
I believe the idea was every man had the duty and responsibility of being a trained soldier. Instead of having a professional military that would be subject to the whims of a leader.
What a lot of progressive completely fail to understand is that we are granted liberty but that comes with responsibility and duty. You are correct in that we have a responsibility to defend our natural rights and our ability to do that is not to be infringed. It's really very simple but well passed the ability of lefties to wrap their heads around because of feelings.
That's fine, but it should be called out separately, because enemies of the new republic will try to tie militia membership to the right to arms.
They've been doing that for ages. The fact is it just doesn't work. The structure of the 4 sentences they use makes it clear beyond doubt that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed regardless of me acting as part of a militia. The 2A says that a militia is important and then goes on to say that the people's right to arms shall not be infringed. I realize we are dealing with jackasses but it really can't be stated any more clearly than it was. In fact that 4 sentence structure was quite brilliant but probably well above the level of brain power of your average progressive.
Well the average brain power of a progressive was never meant to be able to vote. Universal suffrage was the ultimate mistake that has done us in, along with the removal of God and moral ethics from education. The most evil people are also the most intelligent and educated. By removing ethics and civics from education, both public and private, we were doomed to generations of evil and ignorance.
Everybody is in the militia. :)
At a minimum, all male citizens capable of bearing arms.
THIS. They explicitly stated the militia is the whole of the people. Separately, they also advocated for learning how to shoot, especially while young. They didn't have to stress this much, that's how people survived.
It's because people don't learn English in school.
"A well balanced breakfast, necessary for healthy living and state of mind, the right of the people to keep and eat foods, shall not be infringed."
I call it the breakfast argument.
Really, the first part of the 2nd Amendment is so much darker than anyone gives it credit for. What they are saying is "[Because citizens having the arms and training to overthrow a corrupt government is necessary for the citizens to keep their freedoms], the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And seriously: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the strongest statement possible and far stronger than any other amendment.
"Congress shall pass no law" (limits it's imposement upon government)
"shall not be infringed" (strongest possible limitation)
"but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (escape clause)
"but on probable cause" (escape clause)
"without due process of law / without just compensation" (escape clause)
6th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
"than according to the rules of common law" (escape clause)
8th has no escape clause, but doesn't have a strengthener.
Think about that: of the first 8 amendments, 4 have escape clauses, 2 are completely neutral, one has a weakened in its level of restriction upon government, and one solitary amendment goes so far as to say "shall not be INFRINGED", which is the strongest strengthener possible. So fucking strong that even strict scrutiny could reasonably be considered a violation of the Amendment because even strict scrutiny is a level of infringement.
It was written the way it was because it was a warning as well as an amendment: "If you want to keep your freedoms, train up and start stacking bodies when they attempt to restrict your rights to arms."
YES! This is exactly what it says. The more you read of the founding Fathers, the more their own words define themselves. This should be a requirement for every Supreme Court Judge.
Every Surepeme Court Judge? Why is not the requirement for EVERY JUDGE in this country?
That would be even better. I started by thinking "every Constitutional Judge." Then I changed that, because any Judge dealing with matters of any Constitution is a Supreme Court Judge.
There's no reason Judges who don't deal with the Constitution at all shouldn't also be better read on our founding Fathers than I am. And it does take a lot of reading to get familiar with their take on things. Not only are they nuanced, but their positions change throughout their lives, like most people.
This would be a good time to point out that our one vote is MOST important when it goes for a Judge, and possibly for a County Sheriff. Most people who do vote for a Judge know little to nothing about the people on the ballot, yet that Judge will impact the community moreso than perhaps any other Official.
Not to discourage anyone from voting for DJT, but our one vote there is a much smaller % of the total votes. Lots of Judges are elected with few total votes.
I like that one. It helps people realize the "the people" and "militia" are one in the same.
Beautiful!
They'd likely look at you like you were crazy and ask "what does 'shall not be infringed' mean in this future clown world of yours?"
What you mean like a buckskin coat or something? <cackle cackle>