Three-fifths of a person for Negroes is in the Constitution, the Right to bear arms is not
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are all liberals constitutional illiterates?
The Dred Scott ruling occurred in 1854.
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified by the states on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including former slaves, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified February 3, 1870, prohibited states from disenfranchising voters “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.Carol Roth @caroljsroth
Replying to @piersmorgan
It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protectionPiers Morgan@piersmorgan
@caroljsroth
Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution - must have missed it?Carol Roth@caroljsroth
@piersmorgan
right next to the word "muskets"The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence.Are all liberals constitutional illiterates? br b... (
show quote)
All exactly true , thanks for the post. BTW, Implied in the Declaration of Independence as well
Bill P wrote:
The Taney decision was not against the Constitution and Taney did not rule against the Constitution (which was not on trial).
Taney ruled that under the Constitution negroes did not have certain rights - including 'freedom'. Please get it straight and correct your posting.
In fact, the 2nd Amendment makes a good argument that private citizens should be allowed to have any level of weapon the Federal government has. But a local citizen having a nuclear bomb would be insane so perhaps consideration should be to define what is a basic 'defensive' weapon and get out of the way of those - the argument then being that the purpose of the 2nd was for citizens to defend from all transgresseres, including the government.
The Taney decision was not against the Constitutio... (
show quote)
For a very long time, private ownership of up to date artillery as common among the well to do Even today, there are well to do folk who own light artillery and WW2 era tanks and armored vehicles. All perfectly legal.
This thread has brought up some great thoughts such as SCOTUS making up Laws.
1.- Tell me please how SCOTUS could approve the ACA by calling it a "Tax", when the framers thought they were building a terrific new Health Care Law and Oh, by the way, 25 new or increased existing taxes?
2.- Tell me how SCOTUS could wave a magic wand and reword the subsidy portion of the 3,300 page debacle called the ACA, to cover everyone?
3.- Tell me how SCOTUS could ratify the Act that counted LLC's and Corporations as people rather than cash machines allowing big business to pepper money all around to get the people elected that they wanted elected, anonymously?
4.- Lastly, how can SCOTUS be comprised of Justices selected for their political leanings? It makes absolutely no sense to me that a Judge at that level, should harbor any Liberal or Conservative background at all, Judges are not politicians as far as I know, oh, I get it, I am an idiot who thinks that a Judge at any level should be unbiased and incorruptible. My bad!
Loki wrote:
I have an idea; let's revoke the drivers licenses of all non-drinkers so we can stop drunk driving.
That would be logical,.......to them.
They crack me.up.when they intimate that the founders who anticipated so precisely, and had in their time seen more than one improvement in the design and.function of firearms, try to tell us that the founders thought it sensible for future generations to defend against all new weapon improvements.....with muskets.
Blade_Runner wrote:
Are all liberals constitutional illiterates?
The Dred Scott ruling occurred in 1854.
The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified by the states on December 6, 1865, abolished slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Congress required former Confederate states to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment as a condition of regaining federal representation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, granted citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States," including former slaves, and provided all citizens with “equal protection under the laws,” extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified February 3, 1870, prohibited states from disenfranchising voters “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
The 2nd amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns & assault rifles. Fact.Carol Roth @caroljsroth
Replying to @piersmorgan
It was devised 4 people 2b able 2 protect themselves w same type of weaponry used by those from whom they might need protectionPiers Morgan@piersmorgan
@caroljsroth
Where exactly does it say that in the Constitution - must have missed it?Carol Roth@caroljsroth
@piersmorgan
right next to the word "muskets"The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."
It is also helpful to contemplate the overriding purpose and object of the Bill of Rights in general. To secure ratification of the Constitution, the Federalists, urging passage of the Constitution by the States had committed themselves to the addition of the Bill of Rights, to serve as "further guards for private rights." In that regard, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government again, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.
In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.
George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.
By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence.Are all liberals constitutional illiterates? br b... (
show quote)
Sorry, Blade, but the Dred Scott SCOTUS decision was made, not in 1854, but on March 6, 1857....
Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, ruled (7–2) that a slave (Dred Scott) who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise (1820), which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war.
You have no idea of how quickly the Militia will organize. You have no idea of who will form that Militia, men and women who know how to organize, who know how to uses weapons in an orderly manner and know who to appoint as leaders and know how to take orders, who know that the most important job is to keep the person on your left and right alive to the best of your ability. You have no fricking IDEA! Go away pissant. Mike
rumitoid wrote:
The 13, 14, and 15 Amendment were ignored by the South for a Century, just FYI. We no longer have a militia, or the need for one. And this non-existent entity of "militia" you name "armed citizens" is not "well trained, self-regulated and disciplined." Your entire argument is absurd from start to finish.
Yet championing the possible "well-regulated militia," that phrase implicitly means rules of control.
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
rumitoid wrote:
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6]
Are we to rely on the Constitution and Supreme Court for doing what is right? Or a common sense response to what is our daily, present day reality?
The 2nd Amendment was approved in 1791. Its wording is highly controversial. Death by gun violence is not. We have an outdated Amendment. Our weapons are no longer single shot. We have no militia, well-regulated or not (accept for Right Wing domestic terrorist groups). The obstinate refusal to do anything against the frequent assault by guns on our citizens is madness or criminal.
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose an... (
show quote)
That 3/5s was aimed at getting all states to approve the Constitution. left leaners try very hard to make it sound like something it isn't. The southern states were in favor of counting all the slaves as long as they couldn't vote. That 3/5 number is so often used as something other than what it was supposed to be.
oldroy wrote:
That 3/5s was aimed at getting all states to approve the Constitution. left leaners try very hard to make it sound like something it isn't. The southern states were in favor of counting all the slaves as long as they couldn't vote. That 3/5 number is so often used as something other than what it was supposed to be.
Right! It was demanded to recognize the humanity and personhood of slaves.
hemorrhoid wrote:
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6]
Are we to rely on the Constitution and Supreme Court for doing what is right? Or a common sense response to what is our daily, present day reality?
The 2nd Amendment was approved in 1791. Its wording is highly controversial. Death by gun violence is not. We have an outdated Amendment. Our weapons are no longer single shot. We have no militia, well-regulated or not (accept for Right Wing domestic terrorist groups). The obstinate refusal to do anything against the frequent assault by guns on our citizens is madness or criminal.
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose an... (
show quote)
So tell us Bubba, you want our guns to just disappear and you think that's gonna make your world a better place ?
You speak of "frequent assault by guns on our citizens".
If all the guns suddenly vanish, the assaults would then be committed with bats, knives, arrows, frying pans, axes, chainsaws, you name it.
Take away guns and your little world is gonna get a whole lot bloodier.
Chocura750 wrote:
Our enemies are laughing their brains out at the moron in the White House.
You bet they are, they put him there.
Nice pic. I didn't know Liberals liked to play dress-up.
Loki wrote:
Nice pic. I didn't know Liberals liked to play dress-up.
They prefer to cross-dress. Those are liberal women.
Loki wrote:
Nice pic. I didn't know Liberals liked to play dress-up.
A brilliant retort, sort of a dummed down version of the popular second grade “I’m rubber your glue” response, I would expect no less from you.
rumitoid wrote:
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race"[3] who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[6]
Are we to rely on the Constitution and Supreme Court for doing what is right? Or a common sense response to what is our daily, present day reality?
The 2nd Amendment was approved in 1791. Its wording is highly controversial. Death by gun violence is not. We have an outdated Amendment. Our weapons are no longer single shot. We have no militia, well-regulated or not (accept for Right Wing domestic terrorist groups). The obstinate refusal to do anything against the frequent assault by guns on our citizens is madness or criminal.
SCOTUS made this decision: "a negro, whose an... (
show quote)
Rumi, You have hashed, rehashed, and mashed this passionate subject many times as Rumi and many of your favorite identities that posted for any length of time. It is an argument that can be argued over and over without any resolution, EVER! This is our present day reality! There are millions of guns in this country and no more New and improved laws are going to prevent a person who is hell-bent to commit mass murder. The proof is the attacks all over the world using many different 'tools' to accomplish their hate-filled attacks. Can you explain exactly how another law in this country could prevent any kind of violence? The only way that you could prevent any violence is to attack the reason of the attack, and that is the ever increasing HATE in this country. It seems to have started increasing more in the years after Obama was elected, hate against our police, hate for Christians declaring their belief in God, hate of showing our love and devotion for our country ( flag and anthem), white men, violence against anyone pro-life and traditional marriage, and the divide between whites and blacks seem to be as bad or worse than the 60's!!!! The other problem is the influx of radical Islamist that are in this country that HATE anything or anyone not of their religion! Place close attention to my word 'radical'!!!!!! Nothing is going to stop this onslaught of murder until hate is irradiated from those that hate for whatever excuse they use!!!!!! And the guns are not going away!!!! As Moses said, " out of these cold dead hands! "
(Charlton Heston)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
