3 ms·

> There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years Did you know the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was massively altere

> There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years Did you know the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was massively altered in 2008 without a two-thirds majority of Congress nor any majority of the States legislatures?[1] In fact, this is so, and it was done pretty much by one man ironically abandoning his own career-long ideology of strict constitutional interpretations with an argument entirely based on, figuratively speaking, bullshit. We know what the Founders intended because we have the minutes of the Constitutional Congress in which the Founders debated whether to include a right of self-defense in the 2nd, and this was intentionally left out. "Because most Americans believe something," is not a rational nor strictly legal means of altering the US Constitution, and, in fact, the notion floated then was not true. (Prior to 2008 most Americans did not believe the 2nd included an implicit right of self-defense... only the gunnutters pushed that garbage. Most Americans actually knew the truth, that the 2nd concerns militias.) Regardless of this mistake (or lie), this man somehow single-handedly changed the 2nd from a self-less right to protect one's neighbor from tyranny, to a selfish right to protect your television. This... after the (continuing) suspension of habeas corpus and the 5th earlier in that decade. Changing the Constitution (what's left of it) is easy.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller... [2] I may be cynical, but I'm also pretty angry about it, and it doesn't help that no one seems to care or notice that our beloved Constitution has been screwed with.

quantumBerry 5y ago
>Prior to 2008 most Americans did not believe the 2nd included an implicit right of self-defense Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" If you bear arms are you no longer entitled to self defense? Do you know who the militia is in the United States? Are you aware every able bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 are considered militia [1]? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? No. Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. > Do you know who the militia is in the United States? Are you aware every able bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 are considered militia? Are you aware that the purpose of a militia is not self-defense? It is common defense. Big difference. The 2nd has been gutted, and the assault on the Constitution continues. > Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" If you bear arms are you no longer entitled to self defense? The right of self-defense is ancient, predating the rise of civilization and even the evolution of the human species, but if you'd like to point to a written source, how about the Magna Carta? Also, the 2nd does not say that at all unless you ignore the first three words, placed there, one could say, to underscore the importance of them. The 2nd certainly does not say, "the right of a person...." It is the right of The People. How it could be interpreted as an individual right is a bastardization and entirely against the clear intention of The Founders (and, again, we know this from the minutes of the Constitutional Congress... we know what they intended... because they debated whether to include self-defense and intentionally left it out, so we know they did not intend the 2nd to be any individual right). Maybe the First Amendment means that all printed media should be free as in beer? Or that printing presses should be free as in beer? Or that religion and assembly should never cost anything? These interpretations would be the same kind of bastardization of The Founders' intent, grotesquely twisted from something noble and grand to something petty and cheap.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    >Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. Arms are ubiquitous in modern times and the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker. So you're right, it only protects a certain form of self defense by virtue of allowing the implements to defend yourself (arms). >It is the right of The People. Did you purposefully turn "the people" into a proper noun? Do you not understand "the people" are made up of persons? "The people" of the United States are made up of persons. It does not say "the militia" may bear arms, but rather those people ( who are persons ) may bear arms. >Maybe the First Amendment means that all printed media should be free as in beer? Since we've gone off to the first amendment, do you believe "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" only applies to an organized militia and not individual people? The protections of the bill of rights are protections against government, not private entities. You aren't owed something free from a private news company.
int_19h 5y ago
That is a drastic oversimplification of the case. What happened in 2008 was a culmination of a long process that started long before then. I would argue that the starting point was the 1989 essay "The embarrassing 2nd Amendment" [1] by Sanford Levinson, who is not exactly known for his conservative views otherwise. In general, as with every other Supreme Court case, I would recommend going to the primary source and reading the majority opinion and dissents [2], since they go over the various arguments in meticulous detail, and judge for yourself. [1] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7254&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
- Maursault 5y ago
  Your comment is a Straw Man. My intention was not to summarize the case. Changing the Founders intended meaning of the 2nd to include self-defense was really outrageously skew to the case itself, and entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the case and the 2nd. It is brazenly false NRA propaganda from the early 20th Century come to fruition and provably not the Founders' intention. The case is incidental, because its effect on the 2nd that is relevant --because the subject was the "difficulty" in changing the US Constitution: it does not take 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress and a majority of the States legislatures. All it takes is a senile gunnutter on the bench to go beyond the mandate of the highest court and the judicial branch of government: Judges do not legislate. Yet Scalia did, and that part of the decision came out of left field (the idiom would have worked better if it was right field, but that isn't the idiom). The 2nd had a purpose, the purpose was militias, whom the Founders were devoted to, to make a standing army unnecessary, to prevent the consolidation of executive power. But now as an individual right to be armed for the purposes of self-defense it leaves the nation with less and no protection against tyranny. But at least pride has been elevated from an indulgence to a virtue. The last proper exercise of the 2nd will be the Black Panthers at the Alameda County courthouse. That was how the Founders intended the 2nd to work, not as a way to say "don't touch my stuff," not as a source of paranoid mass-delusion.
  - 5y ago

quantumBerry 5y ago

>Prior to 2008 most Americans did not believe the 2nd included an implicit right of self-defense Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" If you bear arms are you no longer entitled to self defense? Do you know who the militia is in the United States? Are you aware every able bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 are considered militia [1]? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Maursault 5y ago
> Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? No. Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. > Do you know who the militia is in the United States? Are you aware every able bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 are considered militia? Are you aware that the purpose of a militia is not self-defense? It is common defense. Big difference. The 2nd has been gutted, and the assault on the Constitution continues. > Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" If you bear arms are you no longer entitled to self defense? The right of self-defense is ancient, predating the rise of civilization and even the evolution of the human species, but if you'd like to point to a written source, how about the Magna Carta? Also, the 2nd does not say that at all unless you ignore the first three words, placed there, one could say, to underscore the importance of them. The 2nd certainly does not say, "the right of a person...." It is the right of The People. How it could be interpreted as an individual right is a bastardization and entirely against the clear intention of The Founders (and, again, we know this from the minutes of the Constitutional Congress... we know what they intended... because they debated whether to include self-defense and intentionally left it out, so we know they did not intend the 2nd to be any individual right). Maybe the First Amendment means that all printed media should be free as in beer? Or that printing presses should be free as in beer? Or that religion and assembly should never cost anything? These interpretations would be the same kind of bastardization of The Founders' intent, grotesquely twisted from something noble and grand to something petty and cheap.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  >Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. Arms are ubiquitous in modern times and the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker. So you're right, it only protects a certain form of self defense by virtue of allowing the implements to defend yourself (arms). >It is the right of The People. Did you purposefully turn "the people" into a proper noun? Do you not understand "the people" are made up of persons? "The people" of the United States are made up of persons. It does not say "the militia" may bear arms, but rather those people ( who are persons ) may bear arms. >Maybe the First Amendment means that all printed media should be free as in beer? Since we've gone off to the first amendment, do you believe "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" only applies to an organized militia and not individual people? The protections of the bill of rights are protections against government, not private entities. You aren't owed something free from a private news company.

int_19h 5y ago

That is a drastic oversimplification of the case. What happened in 2008 was a culmination of a long process that started long before then. I would argue that the starting point was the 1989 essay "The embarrassing 2nd Amendment" [1] by Sanford Levinson, who is not exactly known for his conservative views otherwise. In general, as with every other Supreme Court case, I would recommend going to the primary source and reading the majority opinion and dissents [2], since they go over the various arguments in meticulous detail, and judge for yourself. [1] https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7254&context=ylj https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Maursault 5y ago
Your comment is a Straw Man. My intention was not to summarize the case. Changing the Founders intended meaning of the 2nd to include self-defense was really outrageously skew to the case itself, and entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the case and the 2nd. It is brazenly false NRA propaganda from the early 20th Century come to fruition and provably not the Founders' intention. The case is incidental, because its effect on the 2nd that is relevant --because the subject was the "difficulty" in changing the US Constitution: it does not take 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress and a majority of the States legislatures. All it takes is a senile gunnutter on the bench to go beyond the mandate of the highest court and the judicial branch of government: Judges do not legislate. Yet Scalia did, and that part of the decision came out of left field (the idiom would have worked better if it was right field, but that isn't the idiom). The 2nd had a purpose, the purpose was militias, whom the Founders were devoted to, to make a standing army unnecessary, to prevent the consolidation of executive power. But now as an individual right to be armed for the purposes of self-defense it leaves the nation with less and no protection against tyranny. But at least pride has been elevated from an indulgence to a virtue. The last proper exercise of the 2nd will be the Black Panthers at the Alameda County courthouse. That was how the Founders intended the 2nd to work, not as a way to say "don't touch my stuff," not as a source of paranoid mass-delusion.
- 5y ago