SmarterthanYou
rebel
key word is ARMS...........a concept you refuse to acknowledge is that the Constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. you've now been taught better.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump as a constitutional originalist
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
No, you told us it has to be listed in the Constitution, one has to be able to pinpoint or quote the exact wording.key word is ARMS...........a concept you refuse to acknowledge is that the Constitution was written to restrict the government, not the people. you've now been taught better.
And “arms” is a generalized term, to imply it automatically means guns is to interpret the word, interpret the Constitution, which any strict constructionist would say isn’t allowed
Basic concept the Enlightenment thinkers and Founding Fathers professed is that rights are based on reason not desire
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1. I said no such thingNo, you told us it has to be listed in the Constitution, one has to be able to pinpoint or quote the exact wording.
And “arms” is a generalized term, to imply it automatically means guns is to interpret the word, interpret the Constitution, which any strict constructionist would say isn’t allowed
Basic concept the Enlightenment thinkers and Founding Fathers professed is that rights are based on reason not desire
2. ARMS means any and all weapons. The historical knowledge and experience of the founders knew that governments limit or prohibit arms in order to rule over the populace.
3. you are still wrong on this.
Ah, you didn’t declare yourself a strict constitutionist, a textual reader of the Constitution?1. I said no such thing
2. ARMS means any and all weapons. The historical knowledge and experience of the founders knew that governments limit or prohibit arms in order to rule over the populace.
3. you are still wrong on this.
So how come cherry bombs are banned? Sawed off shotguns? Machine guns purchased since the 1980’s? Can one surround their house with Claiborne mines? How come one can’t buy a quarter stick?
No one, ever, defined Arms in the second amendment as all weapons, in fact just the opposite, read the Heller Majority decision written by Scalia of all people
How is basing rights on reason as opposed desire wrong?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I most certainly AM a strict constitutionalist. not sure where you're going with this.Ah, you didn’t declare yourself a strict constitutionist, a textual reader of the Constitution?
So how come cherry bombs are banned? Sawed off shotguns? Machine guns purchased since the 1980’s? Can one surround their house with Claiborne mines? How come one can’t buy a quarter stick?
No one, ever, defined Arms in the second amendment as all weapons, in fact just the opposite, read the Heller Majority decision written by Scalia of all people
How is basing rights on reason as opposed desire wrong?
those weapons are banned because people who don't believe in, or abide by, the constitution allow them.
I've consistently said that the Heller decision is Scalia cowtowing to the majority of freedom hating morons to help their cognitive dissonance in 'shall not be infringed'.
Basing rights on reason has always been the key setup in rulers using crisis issues as measures to restrict freedom.
So if you are a strict constructionist show us where does in the Constitution does it say anything about shotguns. According to strict constructionism if it isn’t there it is not constitutional. And the word “arms” isn’t “shotgun”I most certainly AM a strict constitutionalist. not sure where you're going with this.
those weapons are banned because people who don't believe in, or abide by, the constitution allow them.
I've consistently said that the Heller decision is Scalia cowtowing to the majority of freedom hating morons to help their cognitive dissonance in 'shall not be infringed'.
Basing rights on reason has always been the key setup in rulers using crisis issues as measures to restrict freedom.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
whoever gave you a definition of 'strict constitutionalism' that led you to believe what you say it does, was wrong. The Constitution was written to restrict and limit the government, NOT the people. So when it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means ANY weapons whatsoever, the federal government has no power or authority over.So if you are a strict constructionist show us where does in the Constitution does it say anything about shotguns. According to strict constructionism if it isn’t there it is not constitutional. And the word “arms” isn’t “shotgun”