Another Conservative Hypocrisy

[ProfessorGAC]

These folks hold up Fat Tony Scalia (that's a mobster reference), Thomas, the new idiot Gorsuch, as brilliant because "originalism"!
As Steve Schmidt said last night on Real Time, the framers could have envisioned an AR-15, fully automatic as much as they could a space ship! And he's a Republican!
So, they're in love with original intent, but original intent apropos the 2nd Amendment COULD NOT INCLUDE THIS!
So, their love for the 2nd does NOT involve original intent, but everything else does
Simple logic suggests either hypocrisy or idiocy!
I'll let everyone decide for themselves which it is!

[greeny2323]

1. 2nd

The 2nd amendment is for militias (of the government-sponsored kind that used to exist). To allow the government to defend itself from foreign powers, and to allow the government to defend itself against uprising by unlawful citizens. It doesn't guarantee a citizen's right to own guns. It's a right of a government police force to be armed.

[jmg257]

5. Close. It's to ensure the people could provide their own arms

To fill their right and duty to serve in the effective militias. That way the people cannot be disarmed, which would destroy the militias - the recourse being the arm of tyrants, huge standing armies.

The Govt already had their powers (not rights) over the state militias (which already existed and were well defined) as listed in s1/8 in the constitution.

ETA: on the religious exemption clause in the article which became the 2nd...

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

E Gerry

[sarisataka]

7. Why does the government

need an Amendment to arm its own forces?

[jmg257]

2. They couldnt comprehend the complete reliance

Last edited Sat Oct 7, 2017, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The people have on maintaining a HUGE standing army either.

The original intent (of the people having effective arms so they could best maintain the vital militias) in our modern society has been obsoleted. Until enough people are convinced otherwise, it is however still the law of the land.

[ProudLib72]

3. It's not their originalism that's admired

It's their ability to frame ultra conservative ideals in terms of original intent.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. See My Post 9

We agree! The hypocrisy is that original intent is, and always has been, a lie.

[unblock]

4. Ah, but the founders intended arms to refer to whatever weapons were available

That one was easy, right-wingers can get way more creative if need be in finding their desired position in whatever the founders wrote.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. That's Not What Scalia Claimed

His premise was that he knew what the framers were thinking and the document is immutable
Any effort to square that contradiction is prima facie flawed

[unblock]

13. That's my point

generally he interpreted the constitution however he wanted then claimed that that was the original intent.

Kinda like the way some people take certain political positions then find a way to claim god agrees with them. And then insist that they're just following the word of god.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Then We Agree Completely!

Good to find allies!

[shadowmayor]

6. Original Intent

And Strict Constitutionalist are Rovian terms for we want to carve the Constitution up and make it as far white-right wing conservative as possible. And the media lets these ugly memes fly through the airwaves without a peep. Justice Scalia was not an originalist - he was a right wing radical. The right knew it all along, but the media played it off like he was some kind of voice of reason.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Exactly My Point!

There is a fraudulent activism in originalism that they cannot logically square.

[madamesilverspurs]

11. Forgive my ignorance, but...

We have laws that govern things that hadn't even been imagined when the Constitution was written (automobiles, airplanes, telephones, radio, television, etc.). Isn't it fair to ask why that can't be applied with regard to guns?

.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. You Have ZERO Ignorance!!!!

It's exactly what I'm saying! They won't discuss 2 because "original intent" but the framers could not have envisioned turning a rifle into a machine gun for 200 bucks
The framers were smart! They weren't this smart!

[Angry Dragon]

14. IDIOCY is my vote

A well regulated militia ................. is the part they never mention

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Personally, I Think It's Both

Hypocrites and idiots!

[Angry Dragon]

18. you are more correct than myself

[Kablooie]

17. Original intent people ignore the original intent of the whole Constitution

The Constitution was specifically left vague so it could be reinterpreted later to conform to future circumstances.