Biden declares, ‘No amendment to Constitution is absolute’ as he rolls out gun measures
Biden Deserves What's Below
Of course they aren’t absolute in two ways. The first is that a new amendment can supersede existing amendments. The second is that reasonable interpretation of the meaning is made by the courts. For instance incitement to r**t, yelling fire in a crowded theater or being naked in public and publishing pornographic images of children are not free expression protected by the first amendment. Our second amendment is tempered by its preface “a well regulated m*****a” this allows the state or federal government to restrict some arms such as destructive devices, artillery, machine guns, bazookas and anti aircraft weapons. And states and localities precluding the carrying and brandishing of weapons in areas they determine.
One of the scariest statements I have ever heard from a politician.
President Biden's interpretation and twisting of words is positively Obamaian in it's dishonesty. If no amendment to the Constitution is absolute as he says, then does he have the power as a President of the United States to abridge that amendment with an executive order. I am sure even wussy Justice Roberts will soon tell him hell no.
Only the Supreme Court or another Constitutional Amendment can change an existing amendment's effects on the citizens of this country.
Many law schools have instructors that believe the American Constitution is a "living document." This means "As culture evolves the definitions need to be changed to 'fit' the culture." I believe in a necessary change in the formal application but not in its original substance.
The substance of the argument for the Second Amendment is, "All citizens have a right to defend themselves against a government that wants to illegally do harm to the citizens." This substantial intent is the absolute fact for the necessity of independent citizen protection. At the time of its writing, the citizen army, for example, fired muskets as did their enemy. The only change is one in "cultural form;" today, we fire many "muskets" like AR-15's.
The "form" of the definition may change but the "substantial intent" stays "absolute." The "Marxist" want to completely change the intent in order to establish governmental power as have all dictators. These "living document instructors" who have been trained at Harvard are "c*******t invaders" who h**e American Independence. They need to be exposed and then denounced as t*****rs to American Freedom for all citizens. These are very dangerously stupid people who wish to "bite the hand that feeds them."
son of witless wrote:
President Biden's interpretation and twisting of words is positively Obamaian in it's dishonesty. If no amendment to the Constitution is absolute as he says, then does he have the power as a President of the United States to abridge that amendment with an executive order. I am sure even wussy Justice Roberts will soon tell him hell no.
Only the Supreme Court or another Constitutional Amendment can change an existing amendment's effects on the citizens of this country.
"does he have the power as a President of the United States to abridge that amendment with an executive order."
That is what he is saying, I believe.
currahee506 wrote:
Many law schools have instructors that believe the American Constitution is a "living document." This means "As culture evolves the definitions need to be changed to 'fit' the culture." I believe in a necessary change in the formal application but not in its original substance.
The substance of the argument for the Second Amendment is, "All citizens have a right to defend themselves against a government that wants to illegally do harm to the citizens." This substantial intent is the absolute fact for the necessity of independent citizen protection. At the time of its writing, the citizen army, for example, fired muskets as did their enemy. The only change is one in "cultural form;" today, we fire many "muskets" like AR-15's.
The "form" of the definition may change but the "substantial intent" stays "absolute." The "Marxist" want to completely change the intent in order to establish governmental power as have all dictators. These "living document instructors" who have been trained at Harvard are "c*******t invaders" who h**e American Independence. They need to be exposed and then denounced as t*****rs to American Freedom for all citizens. These are very dangerously stupid people who wish to "bite the hand that feeds them."
Many law schools have instructors that believe the... (
show quote)
Unfortunately most progressive don't believe in a document written by "old white men." Even if said document is the best governance document ever written. They do believe in the sections they can exploit.
JFlorio wrote:
Unfortunately most progressive don't believe in a document written by "old white men." Even if said document is the best governance document ever written. They do believe in the sections they can exploit.
Thats the t***h. One thing for sure, Ole Joe is going to have a tough time. disarming Americans. 1. We don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth. 2. His history in politics shows he implements policies that are destructive to minorities particuly b****s, Kamala even called him out on it during the debates, but now her lips are sealed, power and money will do that to some people. 3. His policies at the border indicates that he doesn't care about the people of America who are suffering ialready. Our own foster kids, homeless, mentally ill, Veterans, elderly. He just doesn't card.
The second admendment only says, in order to have a m*****a..... it says nothing about the right to own a gun capable of mass murder of civilians.
peg w wrote:
The second admendment only says, in order to have a m*****a..... it says nothing about the right to own a gun capable of mass murder of civilians.
I'm not shocked at all you have no idea what you are talking about.
ChJoe wrote:
"does he have the power as a President of the United States to abridge that amendment with an executive order."
That is what he is saying, I believe.
The string pullers controlling Uncle Joe know all of this. They need to show their bat crap crazies that they are doing something and then when the Supreme Court shoots them down it will be more ammo for their pack the court gambit.
I heard similar stuff about why various Blue States pass anti gun laws that they know will be over turned. They repeatedly do it, and generally back off just before it reaches the high court. It is a well thought out and executed strategy of wearing the good guys down.
Wow.
Americans have gone stark-raving mad.
N**is and C*******ts scream Libertarians care about trifling issues, but Libertarians aren’t the ones who who want to regulate teakwood.
Americans say N**ism is the American way because C*******m k**led more people.
Americans swear remaining quiet is the answer to tyranny.
Americans scream Libertarians are C****es.
Americans insist owning tigers must be illegal because tigers will go extinct, but people now own cats and dogs. Do pet owners have a vested interest in k*****g their own cats and dogs?
Americans are so r****ded today that they say shoes are made by the government.
Americans insist that you are still moral when you c***t on your wife if you are not bisexual.
Americans have become so bats**t insane now that they insist anyone wearing a costume, badge, and a gun is a holy god, but do the Gestapo ever make mistakes?
Why should anyone care if you own guns, use prostitutes, go to church, or smoke?
Have Americans ever read a history book before?
Americans have become such pussified snowflakes now that they beg their beloved government overlords to protect them from scary i*****l i*******ts and guns.
The USA had open borders before, why not now? Do you really think that the US never had black people before today?
If banning guns will stop people from shooting others, will outlawing murder stop homicides?
The government regulates airlines, but do airplanes still crash?
Americans are simply unable to understand that decrees have unintended consequences.
China used to say all birds must be k**led, but then insects multiplied and lead to starvation.
China used to say that the population must grow, but population growth lead to a one child policy. Now China doesn’t have enough young people and the sex ratio is lopsided because boys outnumber girls.
Americans start wars and are then stunned that there are refugees, terrorism, tyranny, and debt.
The US bans business and then Americans are shocked when homelessness increases.
The US starts a trade war and then Americans are completely dumbfounded that no one buys US exports and prices soar.
Americans say coffee must be banned because it is dangerous, but what if an expert wrote a study saying coffee is safe?
Could there possibly be any other way to other way to help the environment besides arresting users of straws?
Americans scream seatbelts must be mandatory because accidents raise insurance costs, but if insurance rates are so important then why not ban skydiving, rope, swimming pools, and ladders, too?
Do Americans who h**e freedom feel like t*****rs?
Kevyn wrote:
Of course they aren’t absolute in two ways. The first is that a new amendment can supersede existing amendments. The second is that reasonable interpretation of the meaning is made by the courts. For instance incitement to r**t, yelling fire in a crowded theater or being naked in public and publishing pornographic images of children are not free expression protected by the first amendment. Our second amendment is tempered by its preface “a well regulated m*****a” this allows the state or federal government to restrict some arms such as destructive devices, artillery, machine guns, bazookas and anti aircraft weapons. And states and localities precluding the carrying and brandishing of weapons in areas they determine.
Of course they aren’t absolute in two ways. The fi... (
show quote)
For once you almost make sense. The problem, of course, being that Biden has already stated he wants to ban weapons that have been declared protected by the SCOTUS Heller decision, and that Article I Sections 9&10 of the Constitution prohibit ex post facto law, which is what an attempt to ban or penalize owners of these weapons does. You cannot make something illegal retroactively, and you cannot penalize someone for doing something that was legal when they did it. The 6th Circuit, a fairly Liberal appellate court has shot down the BATFE's attempt to make possession of a previously purchased "bump stock" a felony for this reason. If you bought it when it was legal, you cannot be punished or penalized for it. You will note that even the Clintoon "gun ban" of '94 left already owned weapons and magazines strictly alone.
Biden's characterization of some of the rifle caliber so-called "assault pistols" as concealable is laughable. These firearms are mostly more than 2 feet long. They are only a little shorter than a carbine. Personally, I have no use for one because the short barrel minimizes ballistic performance, not because of any of the Progressive objections. Same reason I would not carry a snub nose .357 if I had my druthers. Heavy recoil and muzzle flash and terminal performance no better than the .38 Special it was originally meant to chamber.
However, I also have no use for a .460 Weatherby, since I am uninterested in hunting elephants. Doesn't mean I oppose someone else owning them.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.