Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Take his advice, Cam my man. Don't think for yourself. Just let fossten do that for you.
Really Hot gun hearing to decide ban's fate
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
Take his advice, Cam my man. Don't think for yourself. Just let fossten do that for you.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick, we're having a conversation here. Why don't you go troll the police officers' forum or something?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Some times even the lawmakers didn't know what the Constitution meant.
Mr. KING asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd.
--The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison
--The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
I think Mick is actually a sophisticated web bot. There is no actual person behind the posts, just algorithms. We've confused it, so it just posts random responses.
rubberducky700
Well-Known LVC Member
ahhhh. loud noises.
I LOVE LAMP
I LOVE FLOOR.
Some one give this guy a blow dart gun so he can shoot himself in the foot while he practices sitting it in on naked pictures of highschool boys
I LOVE LAMP
I LOVE FLOOR.
Some one give this guy a blow dart gun so he can shoot himself in the foot while he practices sitting it in on naked pictures of highschool boys
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
He does come across as rather mechanized, doesn't he? :shifty:
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Almost always I carry a .45 1911-type Kimber Ultra CDP II with a ported Bar-Sto 5" barrel. Along with it, I carry two 8 round Kimber Mags. If I'm just around the house, I stick a Kahr PM 9 in my pocket.
To be absolutely clear, it is well established that lawmakers understand the meaning of the words used in a law. In order to find the proper meaning of a legal term AT THE TIME THE LAW WAS WRITTEN, there is a law dictionary that is the official source. Recently, that dictionary is Black's. I don't remember offhand the name of the dictionary in use at the time of the framing of the Constitution but copies are around. Last I knew, you could get one from a concern in Boise, Idaho.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Nice carry piece, Cammerfe, I'm envious.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
We don't need the Constitution explained, dude. We need it honestly interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction the lawmakers, according to the historical evidence, most probably wanted applied to the Constitution.
Two of those well established common law rules of construction were invoked, by the great James Madison in Federalist No. 40 to, interpret "the act from Annapolis" and "that from Congress, in February, 1787" recommending what became the historic general convention that framed the U. S. Constitution.
The two rules of construction invoked by Madison date back to the time of Sir Edward Coke (1 February 1552 – 3 September 1634) and held that,
The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
When interpreting the Second Amendment, every word it contains ought to be allowed some meaning and made to conspire with the goal of a free state. What meaning should be given to the words in the first clause of the Amendment in order that they act together with the words of the second clause to achieve the goal of a free state?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Every word in a law must be given an effect. The first clause must have an effect on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The most natural effect might be to construe the word "people" to mean the people in a well regulated militia or perhaps to interpret the word "arms" to mean the type of weapons employed by the well regulated militia or maybe both.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Ho Hum
(You don't have to agree with the SCOTUS, but it's the highest court in the land. There's no appeal from their findings.)
KS
(You don't have to agree with the SCOTUS, but it's the highest court in the land. There's no appeal from their findings.)
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, you sound like a man with a paper nose.
rubberducky700
Well-Known LVC Member
buts hes good at copy pasting. Hell he probably has that in a word format ready for people like us. and when all else fails post gay pictures. COOOL
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end.
The first clause of the Second Amendment must be made to act in harmony with its second clause toward the object of the security of a free state. The "right of the people" must be made to harmonize with "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a state."
For those two clauses to harmonize, either, the word "people" has to mean "a well regulated militia", or "a well regulated militia" has to mean "the people."
The statement, "people is necessary for the security of a free state", just sounds silly. However, the statement, "the right of the people in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds much better, don't you think?
ketyokeinnor
Well-Known LVC Member
"An armed people being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
There, not perfect, but adheres your "rules" and is better than yours.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Fine. Amend the Constitution.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Militia
The common definition of 'militia' at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'all able-bodied men using their own personal weapons'. Examples abound of activities to support this. Lexington-Concord battle is an example.
KS
The common definition of 'militia' at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'all able-bodied men using their own personal weapons'. Examples abound of activities to support this. Lexington-Concord battle is an example.
KS
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Freddie pretends to be objective, spouting all this legal-sounding crap, but in reality he's just a gun grabber. He won't admit it, though. He seems to get his kicks from taunting those whom he can sucker into having a conversation with him.
rubberducky700
Well-Known LVC Member
poor basturdddd
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
The Second Amendment is extremely ambiguous. Especial when the rules of construction require that,
In Federalists No. 40, James Madison wrested with the problem that the goal of achieving a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT couldn't be achieved by means of mere ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. The means was insufficient to achieve the goal. Therefore, Madison sacrificed the means to the more important goal and expanded the means enough to achieve the goal.
In the case of the Second Amendment, the means to achieving the goal of "a well regulated militia" - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -, exceeds, rather than falls short of providing, a means to achieving "a well regulated militia."
The issue is whether the means to achieving "a well regulated militia" should be scaled back, in the name of public safety, to what is necessary to achieve "a well regulated militia."
...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end...where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
-- James Madison; Federalist No. 40
-- James Madison; Federalist No. 40
In Federalists No. 40, James Madison wrested with the problem that the goal of achieving a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT couldn't be achieved by means of mere ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. The means was insufficient to achieve the goal. Therefore, Madison sacrificed the means to the more important goal and expanded the means enough to achieve the goal.
In the case of the Second Amendment, the means to achieving the goal of "a well regulated militia" - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -, exceeds, rather than falls short of providing, a means to achieving "a well regulated militia."
The issue is whether the means to achieving "a well regulated militia" should be scaled back, in the name of public safety, to what is necessary to achieve "a well regulated militia."