This is your term. I don't think there is anything in the Constitution where a term is used that intent in it's use is not knowable. The term Arms is the same, your bitch is guns have progressed and that has been debated much. Machine guns out, rifles in. Actually, I think offense arms and defensive was the original intent. Althought the destinction between the two hardly existed in that day. Natural born is discussed much in letters between founders and is defined in known reference material. We even have copies with founders notes in the reference. Just look and you can find. Very consistent.
Ok, that was kind of my point. Either interpret things in the exact way the founders meant, ALWAYS, or accept that things 'progress'. So should we interpret arms in the way the founders meant or not? They certainly did not mean modern guns, since those had not yet been invented. Sure. But unless you agree that every word, including "arms", in the constitution should be interpreted in the way the founders meant, there's no reason to agree that we should interpret natural born in the way the founders meant. Nope. barfo
@barfo makes a great point - either all terms in the Constitution need to be strict constructionist/original intent or none do. Selectively picking which terms, like arms, get to be revised defeats your whole point Mar.
They debate taxes on tv too. The healthcare bill was handed to everyone hours before the vote and was super long too. I remember rolling my eyes at the shit. At least they finally got the site working. I just had to apply since im jobless. It took about 45minutes for it to tell me you're too broke, try medicade you broke bitch!
The intent was arms keep you from being invaded so in theory we should have everything available. Ill take 2 tanks and one of those fighter jets please. Oh and if i could get my own personal nuke
I pretty much agree. You do know the Government has told us what the meaning of arms is, as applicable to our rights. This is not the process prescribed in the Constitution. The amendment process is and that is the preferred process in my view. There might be several changes agreeable to many but it appears we forgot we have a civil process for redefining what should be the law. Just hoping for judges to give our camps what we want seems to be a mindless process.
How can he be president? Shit I don’t know he ended up being president all 8 years, given the fact white people make up 76 percent of the US population seems to me a lot of white people voted for him if you do some simple math but I see how that wouldn’t fit yours and dviss constant narrative that the country is racist. Voted him in twice.
This is why I am not a strict constructionist nor a Scalia original intenter. "Arms" in the second amendment is a perfect example. That term necessarily must be re-interprted for today. It certainly doesn't mean "muskets" anymore. And if so, then the document must altogether grow and be applicable to new generations and interpretations.
The term Arms never did mean muskets. It has always been a term which implies the state of art weaponry. Madison intent in second amendment was in part to specify the right of individuals to defend themselves and theirs with the force of arms if necessary. Of course it is not written quite as clean as it could be as it needed to attract the support of many representatives. But Arms does not need to be redefined. Perhaps you wish to cap what weapons are considered necessary for personal defense and the government has already done so with the restrictions on Machine Guns. Not exactly with the defined process and I expect you would like to expand the restrictions. The amendment process is the process, not some on high re-interpretation by judges. I cannot remember any critic of the second amendment, individual or group ever propose and amendment. They usually wish to just pass a law they deem reasonable, or seek to get a judge to re-interpret clear language into some new obtuse meaning. These tactics will never gain the support of thinking men where reasonable ideas might if brought forward with the proper process.
I wasn’t talking about George bush so I don’t know where you’re getting that from but yes he was a bad president
What I'm getting at is THAT'S why Obama was elected. Because of Bush. Not because we are past racism like you seem to think. Because that same racism is the reason why Drumpf is president. Ebb and flow. We just had a forum member banned for saying racist things and somehow you think things are equal in this country...
