For the millions of gullible cult like Trumpers basing their support for Trump on their belief that it will increase the likelihood of overturning Roe v. Wade, get ready to give up your guns too. The 14th amendment's due process clause assumes a right to privacy. Declaring that one's right to privacy somehow excludes abortion, opens the door wide open to the government throwing out other fundamental rights grounded under privacy (speech, press, religion...), as well as one's right to bear arms. Can't have it both ways.

Nice trick 426!!!

All the same trump appointees who right now see no limits on executive power will suddenly put on the brakes if Biden took office. All you'll hear about then is the responsibility of the judiciary to act as a check on unrestrained executive overreach.

The whole thing is a sham. If they are such "originalists" and have to consider the intent of the authors of the Constitution above all else, then how in the hell does the 2nd Amendment apply to anything more lethal than a muzzle loaded black powder musket?

They certainly didn't have wooly bearded terrorists in body armor and auto loading AR pattern rifles marching into the Michigan State House in mind in the 1780s.

To suggest that the 2nd Amendment allows unrestricted access to modern weapons is judicial activism.

-------------------------
Capitalism is based on the ridiculous notion that you can enjoy limitless growth in a closed, finite system.

In biology, such behavior of cells is called "cancer".

Edited: 10/14/2020 at 10:00 AM by RustyTruck

You are wrong. See, our founders were pretty smart fellows. They knew, for example, that weapons had evolved, from rocks, sticks, spears, bows and arrows to guns and cannon. They knew that they would keep evolving. That's why they said "bear arms, " as opposed to "hatchets and muzzle loaders." The intent was that we would have the weapons necessary to dissuade our gov't from becoming tyrannical. If machine guns and grenades are what it takes, that's what they meant.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Moreover, the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms applies to militia. A militia is composed of persons armed and trained by a government entity, and not the average citizen. The so called "originalists" that love to own the 2nd amendment as the basis for an unrestricted right to bear arms are actually making a "living constitution" argument, analogous to TPap's above views consistent with the most liberal justices and socialist lawmakers. Average citizens' right to bear arms is not an enumerated right in the constitution, and instead is more closely aligned with the 14th amendment's due process clause & rights to privacy, similar to abortion, family planning, or even one's decision to give birth without the oversight of a trained physician, leading to the same result as an abortion. I don't know what's more head spinning: the Right's hypocrisy; or their cult like belief of everything Trump tells them.

And you are wrong too. The framer's intentions were very clear that the 2nd amendment was enacted, in part, to guarantee the right of individuals to bear arms. There is no question about it.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

tampon

That may be your opinion, but opinions are like assholes and you are one.

It will be illegal for modern individual citizens to posses Military weapons.

Justices who do not support this will be impeached.

The vote is more lethal than the gun ( of any sort)

-------------------------
So if you are a surfer I wish you the prosperity that allows you more time to pursue the salt water dream, and the true happiness that comes from warm water, clean waves and the companionship of your fellow surfers. If you are an internet troll just spewing bs then f off.

Edited: 10/14/2020 at 12:08 PM by jdbman

I'm not saying that the framers did not intend to allow ordinary citizens to bear arms - who knows. I'm merely saying that that right is more grounded under the 14th amendment's group of unenumerated or unwritten rights under due process and privacy (similar to abortion, speech, press, assembly etc.), since the 2nd amendment only mentions a militia's right to bear arms. I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of the right, given their originalist interpretation of the constitution in the context of abortion, while taking a "living constitution" interpretation in the context of the right to bear arms - can't have it both ways.

"The framer's intentions were very clear that" Even though tspank was there when the constitution was written he's still twrongz.

tspankkk is always wrong!

We do know. They wrote about it. The 14th is not more on point on gun ownership. The 2nd deals with it directly. The 14th has no right to privacy and, to my knowlege, has not been used to guarantee the ownership of arms. Privacy has been read into it by certain wayward justices. There is no hypocracy at all.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

I agree that it's obvious that way back then those guys intended (some) people to have the means to resist tyranny, after all that's what they had just done.

But they were certainly not educated enough to predict the nature of the world today, the living density, the lethality of weapons available to individuals or to the tyrants.

They made the document living, and interpretable by people who have the advantage of centuries of science and moral growth, and also the responsibility to effectively govern today's world, not a dream from centuries ago.



-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Edited: 10/14/2020 at 02:32 PM by WG

If you own a axe or hatchet, you have a military weapon according to your idiotic thinking!

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

Barret said she looks at local town law from the penning era when making a decision. Local law from 1775? Ridiculous.

-------------------------
I was right.

She's a horror show that only ancient geezers like tspankkk would appreciate. Dems packing the court anyway. She doesn't matter.

Well I do, and I would use them as weapons if I had to, but what thinking calls them "military weapons". That was certainly true long ago, but not so useful now.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill