The Big President Joe Biden Fail Compilation

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

Lacius said:
The Tenth Amendment would like a word with you, as well as the Second Amendment.

That's a fair criticism. One could have a whole separate argument on whether the scope of the Bill of Rights was extended past its original, intended scope through certain amendments.

I haven't seen any writings from Madison that suggest he considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be anything other than to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that militias would not be disarmed.

Linked below is the letter in which Madison allegedly endorses Coxe's view of the Second Amendment, and there appears to be nothing there. Halbrook is apparently mistaken.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0089

Neither Jefferson nor Madison seem to "correct" Coxe on his assumption regarding the second amendment, both of them appear to accept that it refers to a pre-existing right that all Americans already had that was merely being reinforced on paper. I've seen the issue tackled in some of the Federalist Papers, but I would have to look into it more closely to provide you with a specific quote. For the record, the text of the Constitution refers to rights that are held to be self-evident. To me, it seems like both Madison and Jefferson consider that right self-evident also, as they didn't even think to challenge the assumption that it applied to private individuals, as it had before signing the document.

The Supreme Court had never ruled that the Second Amendment applied to individuals before 2008's District of Columbia v. Heller, as a direct consequence of the work the NRA had been doing for 30 years.

Wrong. Presser v. Illinois, 1886. The court specifically ruled that the right applies to individuals, not militias. Scalia wasn't even a twinkle in his great-great-grandfather's eye.

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

The case in question reaffirmed that the right to bear arms refers to individuals, however the second amendment only restrains Congress, not state legislatures. The latter part was later overruled by McDonald v. City of Chicago.

This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need. In essence, it declared, although individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, a state law prohibiting common citizens from forming personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, is still constitutional because prohibiting such personal military formations and parades does not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

0x3000027E · Jun 24, 2021

Awww....I miss political debates on GBATemp...

Left vs. Right!!!! Red vs. Blue!!!! Who has the bigger dick!!>??? YAAAY
EDIT: And Foxi, before you think about banning me, I have contributed plenty to these discussions, in attempts to discourage others from "taking opposite sides"

djpannda · Jun 24, 2021

0x3000027E said:
Awww....I miss political debates on GBATemp...

Left vs. Right!!!! Red vs. Blue!!!! Who has the bigger dick!!>??? YAAAY

hmm excuse me but some of us don't even have a dick!

Lacius · Jun 24, 2021

Foxi4 said:
That's a fair criticism. One could have a whole separate argument on whether the scope of the Bill of Rights was extended past its original, intended scope through certain amendments.

Neither Jefferson nor Madison seem to "correct" Coxe on his assumption regarding the second amendment, both of them appear to accept that it refers to a pre-existing right that all Americans already had that was merely being reinforced on paper. I've seen the issue tackled in some of the Federalist Papers, but I would have to look into it more closely to provide you with a specific quote. For the record, the text of the Constitution refers to rights that are held to be self-evident. To me, it seems like both Madison and Jefferson consider that right self-evident also, as they didn't even think to challenge the assumption that it applied to private individuals, as it had before signing the document.
Wrong. Presser v. Illinois, 1886. The court specifically ruled that the right applies to individuals, not militias. Scalia wasn't even a twinkle in his great-great-grandfather's eye.

The case in question reaffirmed that the right to bear arms refers to individuals, however the second amendment only restrains Congress, not state legislatures. The latter part was later overruled by McDonald v. City of Chicago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

Presser v. Illinois Holding:
The states may forbid private armies. The Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

Lacius said:
Presser v. Illinois Holding:
The states may forbid private armies. The Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.

"Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." It states that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the states, and that the right to peaceably assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

That's literally what I said. Among other things. Perhaps you should follow both links, or read the full decision. Each SC decision has a specific justification which effectively becomes law, just as much as the decision itself.

Lacius · Jun 24, 2021

Foxi4 said:
That's literally what I said. Among other things. Perhaps you should follow both links, or read the full decision. Each SC decision has a specific justification which effectively becomes law, just as much as the decision itself.

To reiterate, Presser v. Illinois is about whether or not people can form private militias (they Supreme Court ruled they can't). It's about the right of the state to keep and maintain a militia, not about private gun ownership.

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

Lacius said:
To reiterate, Presser v. Illinois is about whether or not people can form private militias (they Supreme Court ruled they can't). It's about the right of the state to keep and maintain a militia, not about private gun ownership.

It specifically states the right of private citizens to bear arms is a necessary pre-requisite to forming militias and/or other organised groups of armed men, however it does not prohibit individual states from restricting and/or regulating such assembly. It, in effect, enshrines 2A as an individual right, as opposed to a right to form militias and *then* procure arms.

EDIT: This isn't really worth arguing over. No constitutional scholar would ever make the assertion you're trying to make, unless they felt like getting ridiculed by their colleagues that day. If this is an instance of "Wikipedia is wrong, the Supreme Court is wrong, the entire legal system which enshrines 2A as an individual right of private citizens is wrong and Lacius is right" then I'm outtie, this isn't a chat worth having.

The second amendment refers to individuals. It has been upheld as such over the course of centuries and was always intended to function in this way. It is also very clear what kinds of "arms" it refers to, and it's not "swords".

Lacius · Jun 24, 2021

Foxi4 said:
It specifically states the right of private citizens to bear arms is a necessary pre-requisite to forming militias and/or other organised groups of armed men, however it does not prohibit individual states from restricting and/or regulating such assembly. It, in effect, enshrines 2A as an individual right.

I don't see anything in the ruling that says that.

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In other words, prohibiting private militias doesn't interfere with the constitutional right to state militias. That's all.

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

Lacius said:
I don't see anything in the ruling that says that.

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In other words, prohibiting private militias doesn't interfere with the constitutional right to state militias. That's all.

I already quoted the relevant part of the article linked. Your inability to infer meaning from a piece of text presented is not my concern. Here's a relevant fragment of the actual decision.

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252

So, to reiterate, Congress cannot infringe upon the 2A because the 2A is a specific limitation on the powers of the federal government. In addition, it is *undoubtedly true* that the states themselves cannot infringe on the right to bear arms *either*. Anything else?

WG481 · Jun 24, 2021

I never saw anything in the full text of the second amendment that says Congress can't tell people to put away their guns. Arms /= Firearms

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

WG481 said:
I never saw anything in the full text of the second amendment that says Congress can't tell people to put away their guns. Arms /= Firearms

Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.

WG481 · Jun 24, 2021

Foxi4 said:
Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.

When reading the constitution I look at the dang text and decide everything with its dictionary meaning.

Valwinz · Jun 24, 2021

????????????
pic.twitter.com/u00esLRDuN
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 24, 2021

In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this

WG481 · Jun 24, 2021

Valwinz said:
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1408137828119240706
In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this

That's a very conservative news feed.

Foxi4 · Jun 24, 2021

WG481 said:
When reading the constitution I look at the dang text and decide everything with its dictionary meaning.

That's very nice, but words change meaning over time, and certain grammatical constructions go out of favour and are replaced by others. If you met anyone who spoke or wrote in the manner the founding fathers have, you'd think they were an alien. You can of course have a different opinion, and you're entitled to be wrong - you live in a free country, I presume. It's a good thing the U.S. has the Supreme Court to resolve such conundrums, instead of relying on the opinion of "a guy on the Internet".

Lacius · Jun 24, 2021

Foxi4 said:
I already quoted the relevant part of the article linked. Your inability to infer meaning from a piece of text presented is not my concern. Here's a relevant fragment of the actual decision.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/116/252

So, to reiterate, Congress cannot infringe upon the 2A because the 2A is a specific limitation on the powers of the federal government. In addition, it is *undoubtedly true* that the states themselves cannot infringe on the right to bear arms *either*. Anything else?

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.

Foxi4 said:
Once again, you are incorrect. When reading the constitution you must necessarily nest it in the context of when it was written and what the wording actually meant, otherwise you end up with bizarre abominations of law that, admittedly, can sometimes gain support. A couple come to mind instantly, but are not relevant to the subject.

"Arms" meant something wholly different than what it means today. Does the Second Amendment only pertain to old timey muskets, for example?

Valwinz said:
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1408137828119240706
In this one President Biden seems to well not sure why he is doing this

It's amazing what cutting out preceding comments and questions will do to the context of a video.

Xzi · Jun 24, 2021

How the fuck is this thread still going? What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them? The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread. Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other. This isn't that complicated.

djpannda · Jun 24, 2021

Xzi said:
How the fuck is this thread still going? What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them? The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread. Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other. This isn't that complicated.

foxi stated he was going to have it look at but didn't mention anything else after that... This thread should of been closed 6 hours ago.

Xzi · Jun 24, 2021

djpannda said:
foxi stated he was going to have it look at but didn't mention anything else after that... This thread should of been closed 6 hours ago.

It should've been closed ten minutes after it was posted, but Foxi clearly can't be trusted to stay impartial in matters like these. He's just letting Valwinz have the run of the place and slowly turn it into 4chan.

AmandaRose · Jun 24, 2021

Xzi said:
How the fuck is this thread still going? What's the purpose of rules for this section if none of the mods are going to enforce them? The title itself is bad enough, but for all intents and purposes this is also essentially a duplicate of the "conservative news corner" thread. Pick one of the two to be the new conservative cope megathread, and lock the other. This isn't that complicated.

100% agree the thread is just fucking sick concidering the presidents age and the fact he may or may not have mental health issues.

Making fun of someone for being old or for being mentally unwell is fucking wrong.

The Big President Joe Biden Fail Compilation

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

GBAtemp's Pannda

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

Official Waluigi Propagandist

Endless Trash

Official Waluigi Propagandist

Well-Known Member

Official Waluigi Propagandist

Endless Trash

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

GBAtemp's Pannda

Time to fly, 621

Do what I do. Hold tight and pretend it’s a plan

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum