No we didn't, we got our asses handed to us by Vietnamese farmers. Quite an embarrassing moment in our history, really.US won Vietnam
No we didn't, we got our asses handed to us by Vietnamese farmers. Quite an embarrassing moment in our history, really.US won Vietnam
why did we not nuke them or use our F15 equivalent at the time?No we didn't, we got our asses handed to us by Vietnamese farmers. Quite an embarrassing moment in our history, really.
That is definitely a question.why did we not nuke them or use our F15 equivalent at the time?
False. It specifically states that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals, regardless of whether or not they're currently a part of militia. It is their right inherently, by the virtue of being citizens of the United States, and neither the state nor the federal government can infringe upon it as in doing so they would deprive the United States of a valuable resource - armed men that can be called upon to protect their state or country. It is written in black and white. If you have a different interpretation, please post a correction on Wikipedia instead of arguing with me (it will be rejected, mind - you're wrong, as evidenced multiple times earlier).Everything you just posted is in direction connection with service in a militia. As I previously stated in my original post, it was not until District of Columbia v. Heller that the Supreme Court ruled, for the first time, that individuals had a right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia.
Oh, I don't know - you tell me. Considering the fact that Lewis and Clarke adventured across North America armed with a fully automatic Girardoni air rifle equipped with a high capacity gravity-fed magazine and a muzzle velocity that rivaled black powder muskets at the time, allowing them to fairly easily dispatch an armed group of men with puny muzzle loaders, I presume the founders had some inclination on how technology was going to progress in the future. Private citizens, particularly merchants and militia members, were also permitted to own high caliber cannons, as well as gatling guns and explosives. The puckle gun for instance dates all the way back to 1718 and was equipped with an 11-round cylinder, compared to... well, no cylinder in a muzzle loaded musket - that's 11 times more better. Who knows though, who knows - maybe they had some restrictions in mind, despite the fact that everyday citizens were already permitted to be armed better than the military was at the time, provided they could afford it."Arms" meant something wholly different than what it means today. Does the Second Amendment only pertain to old timey muskets, for example?
You're dishonestly leaving out the part where the Supreme Court says it's because they can be considered reserve members of the state militia.False. It specifically states that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals, regardless of whether or not they're currently a part of militia.\
Are you saying modern Americans only have a constitutional right to air rifles and other guns around during the late 18th century? That would at least be consistent with your views against "bizarre abominations of law."Oh, I don't know - you tell me. Considering the fact that Lewis and Clarke adventured across North America armed with a fully automatic Girardoni air rifle equipped with a high capacity gravity-fed magazine and a muzzle velocity that rivaled black powder muskets at the time, allowing them to fairly easily dispatch an armed group of men with puny muzzle loaders, I presume the founders had some inclination on how technology was going to progress in the future. Private citizens, particularly merchants and militia members, were also permitted to own high caliber cannons, as well as gatling guns and explosives. The puckle gun for instance dates all the way back to 1718 and was equipped with an 11-round cylinder, compared to... well, no cilinder in a muzzle loaded musket - that's 11 times more better. Who knows though, who knows - maybe they had some restrictions in mind, despite the fact that everyday citizens were already permitted to be armed better than the military was at the time, provided they could afford it.
How am I leaving it out? I directly quoted it. In the time of need I would expect any armed and capable American to defend their home and country, particularly in the event of an invasion. This doesn't affect the fact that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals and that the Supreme Court stated as much long before 2008.You're dishonestly leaving out the part where the Supreme Court says it's because they can be considered reserve members of the state militia.
I state that the American citizenry should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military if that is their fancy, which is congruent with the SC's ruling that any armed individual can be called upon to defend home and country. That was the status quo then, and it should be the status quo now. I find things like the Assault Weapons Ban as inherently unconstitutional governmental overreach that should've never been allowed to happen, and it is criminal that it *wasn't* immediately overturned. It was also ineffective according to multiple studies. I share similar feelings in regards to fully automatic weapons and see no reason why responsible citizens should be prohibited from owning them. I do however make the "responsible citizens" concession since I am not blind to the realities of this world. Not everyone is *capable* of being responsible with a firearm, in the same way as not everybody is able to be a responsible driver. Mental illness and other afflictions affect one's ability to bear arms responsibly, so I'm not opposed to a degree of gun control, including background checks and training requirements, in regards to testing the ability of a firearms license applicant or their criminal history. I believe the founders thought the same, as they often refer to "able" men, and not everyone is "able".Are you saying modern Americans only have a constitutional right to air rifles and other guns around during the late 18th century? That would at least be consistent with your views against "bizarre abominations of law."
Once again, the Supreme Court did not rule until 2008 that individuals had a right to gun ownership separate and apart from concerns about militia rights.How am I leaving it out? I directly quoted it. In the time of need I would expect any armed and capable American to defend their home and country, particularly in the event of an invasion. This doesn't affect the fact that the right to bear arms undoubtedly refers to individuals and that the Supreme Court stated as much long before 2008.
You're sidestepping the point I was making. Do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military today, or do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms the U.S. military had in the 18th century? For an originalist to be consistent, it would have to be the latter.I state that the American citizenry should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military if that is their fancy, which is congruent with the SC's ruling that any armed individual can be called upon to defend home and country. That was the status quo then, and it should be the status quo now. I find things like the Assault Weapons Ban as inherently unconstitutional governmental overreach that should've never been allowed to happen, and it is criminal that it *wasn't* immediately overturned. It was also ineffective according to multiple studies. I share similar feelings in regards to fully automatic weapons and see no reason why responsible citizens should be prohibited from owning them. I do however make the "responsible citizens" concession since I am not blind to the realities of this world. Not everyone is *capable* of being responsible with a firearm, in the same way as not everybody is able to be a responsible driver. Mental illness and other afflictions affect one's ability to bear arms responsibly, so I'm not opposed to a degree of gun control, including background checks and training requirements, in regards to testing the ability of a firearms license applicant or their criminal history. I believe the founders thought the same, as they often refer to "able" men, and not everyone is "able".
False. They have that right de facto, and the ability to form various kinds of groups of armed men is its consequence, not the other way around. That was the ruling, as quoted.Once again, the Supreme Court did not rule until 2008 that individuals had a right to gun ownership separate and apart from concerns about militia rights.
False. An originalist can see that citizens at the time were allowed to be armed to the same or even superior extent as the military was. That is the framing the founders operated in, so the right to bear arms must necessarily mean the right to bear *the same arms* as we (the government) bear. That was the original intent, and that is the originalist interpretation. If you find that interpretation to be inconsistent, you must think that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the Internet, or the Radio, or any other form of communicating a message that the founders were not familiar with. That's asinine - it is an inherent right that applies to all forms of communication.You're sidestepping the point I was making. Do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms as the U.S. military today, or do you think American citizens should have the right to bear the same arms the U.S. military had in the 18th century? For an originalist to be consistent, it would have to be the latter.
Can you quote the part of the ruling that said individuals had a right to gun ownership that was unrelated to militia rights? You can't. You're misunderstanding or misreading the Supreme Court ruling.False. They have that right de facto, and the ability to form various kinds of groups of armed men is its consequence, not the other way around. That was the ruling, as quoted.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
If their intent was for citizens to be allowed to be armed to the same extent as the military at that time, then an originalist would say that the right to bear arms only includes the arms available to the military at the time it was written.False. An originalist can see that citizens at the time were allowed to be armed to the same or even superior extent as the military was. That is the framing the founders operated in, so the right to bear arms must necessarily mean the right to bear *the same arms* as we (the government) bear. That was the original intent, and that is the originalist interpretation.
Oh, this will be fun. Yeah, an originalist should say Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the internet, the radio, or any other forms of communicating that weren't around during the 18th century, and that's asinine. Sucks for you and the other originalists.If you find that interpretation to be inconsistent, you must think that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the Internet, or the Radio, or any other form of communicating a message that the founders were not familiar with. That's asinine - it is an inherent right that applies to all forms of communication.
I see the problem. You don't understand what originalism means. That's fine, it explains a lot. We can end here, this conversation is destined to be fruitless, we're on different wavelengths.Can you quote the part of the ruling that said individuals had a right to gun ownership that was unrelated to militia rights? You can't. You're misunderstanding or misreading the Supreme Court ruling.
If their intent was for citizens to be allowed to be armed to the same extent as the military at that time, then an originalist would say that the right to bear arms only includes the arms available to the military at the time it was written.
Oh, this will be fun. Yeah, an originalist should say Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to the internet, the radio, or any other forms of communicating that weren't around during the 18th century, and that's asinine. Sucks for you and the other originalists.
>Tells me I don't understand what originalism means.I see the problem. You don't understand what originalism means. That's fine, it explains a lot. We can end here, this conversation is destined to be fruitless, we're on different wavelengths.
This definition is correct. You, on the other hand, are wrong. The founders were perfectly aware of rapid technological progress, in some cases they were even an integral part of it. As such, it is perfectly fair to assume that if they wished to clarify what arms were permitted and what were not, they would qualify said right, as they did with the right to assemble using the word "peaceably". You have the right to assemble, but only if it is a peaceful assembly - a qualifier. The right to bear arms, as it would've been understood at the time, was the right to bear any arms available on the market at any given time, not specific arms available at the time of writing. The constitution wasn't written to be valid for a year or two, it was written to be valid forever. Similarly, if the right to free speech only applied to me talking to you in private, it would've been qualified as such. It is not, therefore it applies to all modes of communication that confer speech. The right to bear arms was *intended* to work perfectly fine in the future and, by extension, encompasses any future weapons that may be developed. Had that not been the case, it would've been more specific in terms of applicability. Freedom of speech applies to the telephone, the right to bear arms applies to modern arms.>Tells me I don't understand what originalism means.
>Ends conversation before defining what originalism actually means.
If that isn't evidence that your participation in this conversation isn't in good faith, I don't know what is.
As for originalism, it means the following (per Google):
a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.
I'm not sure how in any way, shape, or form it could be suggested that I don't know what originalism means. Each time I used it was in a way that comports with the above definition.
I'd agree with you on most these points. They're just not very originalist. I assume with these sorts of "living document" sentiments of yours that you agree with the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and sex discrimination as it relates to LGBT discrimination.This definition is correct. You, on the other hand, are wrong. The founders were perfectly aware of rapid technological progress, is some cases they were even an integral part of it. As such, it is perfectly fair to assume that if they wished to clarify what arms were permitted and what were not, they would qualify said right, as they did with the right to assemble using the word "peaceably". You have the right to assemble, but only if it is a peaceful assembly - a qualifier. The right to bear arms, as it would've been understood at the time, was the right to bear any arms available on the market at any given time, not specific arms available at the time of writing. The constitution wasn't written to be valid for a year or two, it was written to be valid forever. Similarly, if the right to free speech only applied to me talking to you in private, it would've been qualified as such. It is not, therefore it applies to all modes of communication that confer speech. The right to bear arms was *intended* to work perfectly fine in the future and, by extension, encompasses any future weapons that may be developed. Had that not been the case, it would've been more specific in terms of applicability. Freedom of speech applies to the telephone, the right to bear arms applies to modern arms.
I disagree with the notion that my statement confers any kinship towards the living document doctrine. The meaning of the document has not changed - "citizens have a right to bear arms" and "it shall not be infringed". They have this right for various purposes, the listed one being "for the purpose of forming militias and guaranteeing the safety and security of the state", which they are allowed to (not required to) do under "well-regulated" conditions set by the state of origin. From this purpose we can infer that the arms in question are ones that would put the population on equal footing with an opposing force, at any given time. That interpretation would definitely include military-grade firearms, since that is what the military is armed with. It is perfectly consistent - the document hasn't changed, and neither did its provisions. The times have changed, and with time so did technology. That's besides the point though, since not all "living document" arguments are silly, just a select few egregious ones that have nothing to do with 2A. To reiterate, the right to Free Speech applies to the Internet in the same way as the right to bear arms applies to machine guns, in my honest opinion. If only we should be so lucky, they look like a lot of fun to use at the range.I'd agree with you on most these points. They're just not very originalist. I assume with these sorts of "living document" sentiments of yours that you agree with the Supreme Court decisions on abortion, same-sex marriage, and sex discrimination as it relates to LGBT discrimination.
While I'm being serious, I'm also being silly. We don't have to go down those roads. They're a lot.