I grew up in DC area. I do think the central government should limit its meddling in the affairs of the city. I would agree there. That way DC residents can have more opportunities to elect drug dealers to do things.
"area" huh?
OT: So Hillary wants to make DC the 51st state
- Thread starter 11tigers11
- Start date
"area" huh?
I understand how contracts work, an offer, consideration and acceptance. I mistyped, legal document... What other ones do you consider living? By the way you ignored the question about "people".
What you typed here doesnt make a great deal of sense and your attempt at using legal terms with definite meanings is silly. Im not sure what a "legal document" is? any document with legal force? Contracts are not "living", in the way you are using it, clearly they live and die by the terms of the contract. But a constitution is clearly not a contract and there absolutely are tons of examples of "legal documents" designed to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. Regardless, a constitution cant possibly be expected to contain applicable law for every single possible set of facts, its just impossible.
Black's definition of the word "constitution": In public law, the organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting, the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
Last edited:
I don't think you should have this much difficulty producing examples of other documents that you would consider living / breathing.
"this much difficulty"? is this a joke? you have absolutely no understanding of the law or how our legal system works, and you are challenging me to produce an example?
Fine: You and I sign a contract for the sale of 10000 red widgets. Something happens, outside the scope of the contract, and you can only sell me 10000 blue widgets. I sue you. Since the thing that happened wasn't specifically accounted for in the contract, it becomes a judges job to INTERPRET the intent of the sellers, using the contract and any negotiations during the writing of the contract to render a ruling.
so, because the US constitution doesnt and cannot possibly contain a remedy or law for every single fact pattern that will ever arise in the united states, judges MUST interpret and extend the constitution. our legal system is literally impossible without it.
The Militia Act of 1903, which created The National Guard,specified the differences between the definitions. It organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
In multiple posts above you defend judges responsibility to interpret the law. See the Supreme Court decision below.
D.C. v Heller
In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
Emphasis mine.
How much public debate was there in the years following the amendment? The lack thereof leads me to believe the meaning was clear to the populace. Moreover, most of the early appearances in law are centered around citizenship and the subsequent right to carry a firearm (eg Dredd Scott).
I respect that you don't agree with gun ownership. I have no problem with gun control efforts aimed at safety and think assault rifles are insane. That being said, you are grasping at straws if you think the framers of a document aimed at protecting the people from an oppressive government used that phrase to confine all firepower to government control. An action that in and of itself would have prevented the very revolution they had supported.
James Madison, the author of the 2nd amendment wrote the following in The Federalist Papers:
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
I could be misinterpreting but I read that as him advocating for armed Americans.
Yes. Howard County. My family lived in DC and until recently did. My uncle was in the NSA. I know the area very well and I understand exactly what you're talking about.
im not sure what you wrote and didnt write, but ill start by saying that I believe Heller should be overturned.
I dont disagree entirely with gun ownership, im happy for people to have rifles for hunting and other weapons for protection. I believe they should be regulated like crazy (ala cars), and I dont see any contradiction with the 2nd amendment there.
i also dont think the framers of the constitution "used that phrase to confine all firepower to government control".
But, finally, I know the framers of the constitution didnt foresee things like fully automatic assault rifles, and "light machine guns" like this one. and we agree on that point, these weapons shouldn't be owned by civilians. But to get there, we have to interpret the constitution, and there are multiple people ITT who disagree with that notion. I suppose they think the constitution gives them the right to own an f-16, or this M249 because its not expressly forbidden.
if you understood exactly what im talking about, you'd know that the people of DC deserve to control the manner in which their tax dollars are spent, they deserve to have a voice in national policy discussions, and they deserve a vote on the house and senate floor.
amend the constitution if we have to.
You answered the question about the militia for me! The Militia Act defined two militias, the RESERVE Militia (all men, which in a strict Constitutionalist sense should exclude women from gun ownership) and the ORGANIZED militia (remember the words from the Second Amendment). Ergo, not all men should be able to own a gun.
Now, you brought real life into the equation. You said the notion of owning a automatic weapon is ridiculous, which I agree with. And here is the kicker: I do not think guns ought to be outlawed! We probably agree on a good bit. My point is this: the Second Amendment should not be used to outlaw any form of gun control. Common sense should prevail, and there should be some forms of gun limitation - a waiting period, ban on large magazines, ban on automatic weapons. But if you want a handgun to protect yourself in your home (dont even start on open carry), then go ahead. Take a class, wait a week, and get your gun. You want to hunt? Same thing. I fully support you. I will never put a gun in my house, but I understand why some would want one.
The problem with our country is that people cant see a middle ground. Consevatives think any form of anything but free reign on guns is "gun control," and I will freely admit there are liberals that want to completely eliminate guns. Also stupid. If we could agree on some limits, our country would be a better place and we could actually get somewhere.
Now, to bring the post back to the original point I made hours ago - the Constitution cannot foresee every circumstance and situation our country faces. A common sense reading of the second Amendment would allow for some restrictions on guns. Therefore, I would consider the Constitution "living." Because there are parts that are unclear and are up to interpretation.
Now cue @Willence discussing blowing up DC and living in a state of anarchy.
Pretty much all the points I try to make too. I dont see how this could be argued with.im not sure what you wrote and didnt write, but ill start by saying that I believe Heller should be overturned.
I dont disagree entirely with gun ownership, im happy for people to have rifles for hunting and other weapons for protection. I believe they should be regulated like crazy (ala cars), and I dont see any contradiction with the 2nd amendment there.
i also dont think the framers of the constitution "used that phrase to confine all firepower to government control".
But, finally, I know the framers of the constitution didnt foresee things like fully automatic assault rifles, and "light machine guns" like this one. and we agree on that point, these weapons shouldn't be owned by civilians. But to get there, we have to interpret the constitution, and there are multiple people ITT who disagree with that notion. I suppose they think the constitution gives them the right to own an f-16, or this M249 because its not expressly forbidden.
It would be pretty cool to own my own F16
I already said that the central government should stay out of DC's business as much as possible. As for representation in the House and Senate, no! I would completely support shrinking DC back to the 10 miles that was originally intended and annexing the rest into Virginia and Maryland. Then they have representation. Unfortunately, you won't agree to that because it doesn't suit what you really want from it which has nothing to do with people there.
What you have pictured looks like a semi auto rifle, I have many and not all look "scary" like this one. I seriously doubt you have much firearm knowledge / training, but if I'm wrong please enlighten us.im not sure what you wrote and didnt write, but ill start by saying that I believe Heller should be overturned.
I dont disagree entirely with gun ownership, im happy for people to have rifles for hunting and other weapons for protection. I believe they should be regulated like crazy (ala cars), and I dont see any contradiction with the 2nd amendment there.
i also dont think the framers of the constitution "used that phrase to confine all firepower to government control".
But, finally, I know the framers of the constitution didnt foresee things like fully automatic assault rifles, and "light machine guns" like this one. and we agree on that point, these weapons shouldn't be owned by civilians. But to get there, we have to interpret the constitution, and there are multiple people ITT who disagree with that notion. I suppose they think the constitution gives them the right to own an f-16, or this M249 because its not expressly forbidden.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect us against people like you. This will be the third time I've asked. What did they mean when they wrote "We the people"? What did they mean when they wrote "the right of the people"? Did the definition of "people" change from the first sentence to the 2nd amendment?
it is, factually, an m249 LMG/SAW. it fires 5.56x45s at up to 800 rpms. It is a "light machine gun".
civilians should not be allowed to own that weapon. agree?
Which you would have to get a 3rd class weapons permit to obtain, which is possible under current law. What about the other questions?
any machinegun manufactured after 1986 is illegal unless it is being manufactured specifically for a government entity. You are only eligible for a class III license to own a machinegun if it was manufactured and registered prior to 1986.
How about answering my oth
why are you afraid to answer my constitutional question? Remember the one about the 2nd amendment, it's a couple posts above if you need to reread it. Or perhaps talk about your vast personal knowledge and expertise with firearms?
Why do you keep asking this? Are you referring to the preamble, which says "we the people,"? People are still people, in both the preamble and second amendment. The part YOU choose to ignore, however, is the part about the "well regulated militia." You seem to want to ignore that qualifying clause. I can see why, though, because it would invalidate your argument.
I've had enough of this, you're ignoring the supreme courts ruling. Have a good day.
Please feel free to explain. You just keep saying "what does people mean" like some sort of dolt.
I wasn't actually insinuating that the poster is a racist. I was commenting on the fact that the previous poster, who was being a dick about the fact that Congress' power over the affairs of Washington DC is written in the constitution, seems to be unaware of the fact that the constitution can be amended and has in fact been amended 27 times. That's just one of the more fun examples of how our constitution has changed over the years.
Aside from that, your comment was really insightful. You're right, we should all pretend that what happened in the past has no bearing on anything at all and just forget about it. Because that's true. And I also thought your line about progressive/regressive was clever and original.
Since the people who live there are being tax without representation, shouldn't a new state be set up to represent the populated areas and then just exempt th capital proper?
Btw, if you think Republicans don't use race as a political wedge then you are blind. Perhaps you are one of the few that do not, but the great Southern Republican strategy was built upon the enactment of The civil rights act that was pushed by a democratic President. Lee Atwater, one of the worse ones, even apologized for race baiting, among other things. In addition, at trump rallies how many times is the disenfranchisement of the white working class talked about? Trump is revealing the dirty little secret in a very ugly way of how many in the Republican Party have used racial undertones to drive the majority vote. Are Democrats innocent? No, they have used race effectively as well. Both do it bc that is the way most Americans think: most say they don't have a racial bias but most vote like they do.
I suppose it goes to the investigation and the facts of the case related to whether or not she should be prosecuted. A Politico analysis from a few weeks ago showed that in similar cases (to the extent that they knew the facts as well), people are rarely prosecuted. To be sure there will be tons of scrutiny on the decision so I would expect that The FBI will be thorough, if anything. Likewise, I am sure there are plenty of ppl in the FBI that are not HRC supporters. If they fail to do their job and there is a smoking gun that shows she could be convicted, it will come out.
Regarding Whitewater, as I recall when she got subpeoned before Congress (back in the 90s) she kicked tail about like she did when she body slammed Gowdy's committee here recently . Btw, as an aside, Gowdy had been going around Spartanburg urging people to watch as he bragged he was gonna end things for her. Yeah, right! I think one prominent Republican tweeted that she was playing them like a bunch of fools during her testimony and urged them to stop as they were basically helping her get re-elected. Furthermore, Ken Starr was the investigator on Whitewater, was he not? Don't you think he would have brought charges if she looked guilty? He hated the Clintons. Remember, just because you want her to be guilty does not make it so. That is how She made Gowdy and his chums look and I recall many saying it was the same thing when she appeared as a First Lady.
