Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Who will "Win?"

  • Total voters
    42
Hoopguru said:
JMO, I think that when the wrote the BORs it wasn't just intended for that time frame or period.The Founders were looking down field as a way to help and protect the people for generations to come.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Phatguysrule said:
My point is that anybody can dilute themselves into not understanding something they don't want to understand. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Which is the point you keep driving home for me.

You don't have to understand this freedom they've spelled out for you. It is there. The courts have agreed that it is there. We have not amended the Constitution to update it.

This has nothing to do with my self-assurance. I've done nothing which could be commended. I have no self interest in this conversation.

You are an intelligent person. I know and understand that very well. And I believe you have good intentions.

The only way that you don't understand is if you refuse to acknowledge the way the term has been used and was being used more commonly at that time.

All I have done is provided you with proof that the terminology was in fact commonly used in that manner at that time and for at least 100 years longer (in fact, it is even used in that manner today, though less commonly).

Once again, I understand if you don't agree with the people having these rights. I'm simply saying the proper way to get what you want is to support updating the Constitution. Not to encourage misinterpretation of the clear text of the the Constitution.

That leads us to a place that I don't believe any of us want to go.
Click to expand...
What you call "proof" I call "conjecture". You were not there when the amendment was written. You cannot with any certainty divine their original intentions. I am not "refusing" to do anything but disagree with your opinion, along with those of the courts. Put different people on the bench and the opinions might change. But again, in my reading, the Second Amendment is highly contradictory and therefore open to any interpretation a Supreme Court may decide along the way, depending on the times and the political climate. What's "clear" to one person is gobbledygook to another person. There is a reason lawyers exist, ya know? Right now, at this moment your response is closest to "right". Tomorrow may well be a different story. But when you take such a hard line stance as you are taking, then NO real worthwhile change will ever happen because there is no room for compromise. Gun ownership is just another manifestation of personal insecurity (IMHO).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
What you call "proof" I call "conjecture". You were not there when the amendment was written. You cannot with any certainty divine their original intentions.
Click to expand...
This would be like saying since we weren't there to witness species actually evolve over billions of years we can't actually know that evolution is a true phenomenon.

We know it exists because there are markers that show it exists. We have collected and stored data that shows species unmistakably evolve.

Just like I have shared a few examples that we have on record which shows the term "well regulated" was commonly used at the time of writing in a way that makes the second amendment make perfect sense. And completely removes any conflict with any other part of the second amendment, and in fact, doesn't conflict with any other part of the Constitution as a whole. Rather, works with the rest of the Constitution, including the first, fourth, and 14th amendments (as well as others).

I am not "refusing" to do anything but disagree with your opinion, along with those of the courts. Put different people on the bench and the opinions might change.
Click to expand...

True. What I've shared here is my opinion. And yes, as I have said above, bias can impact the court's rulings.

But again, in my reading, the Second Amendment is highly contradictory and therefore open to any interpretation a Supreme Court may decide along the way, depending on the times and the political climate. What's "clear" to one person is gobbledygook to another person. There is a reason lawyers exist, ya know? Right now, at this moment your response is closest to "right". Tomorrow may well be a different story. But when you take such a hard line stance as you are taking, then NO real worthwhile change will ever happen because there is no room for compromise. Gun ownership is just another manifestation of personal insecurity (IMHO).
Click to expand...

My point is that for us to determine that the authors of the Bill of Rights were fools who wrote contradictory gibberish requires us to take a leap of faith which seems unsupported by evidence. It seems to make more sense for us to interpret their carefully and painstakingly written words and ideas in a manner that they would make sense at the time of writing.

The second amendment is very short and very concise. It takes definite mental gymnastics to misconstrue the very clear intention, in my opinion.

If you didn't hold the opinion that you just shared on gun ownership, I do not believe that you would be so resistant to understanding the text of the second amendment.

And I do not believe that any unbiased court will determine the text of the second amendment means anything other than what I have described. I do believe that it may be amended.

Though I do not know how we can amend it and still protect the rights that I firmly believe the authors intended.
 
Last edited:
Hoopguru said:
JMO, I think that when the wrote the BORs it wasn't just intended for that time frame or period.The Founders were looking down field as a way to help and protect the people for generations to come.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the founders in writing the constitution tried their best hand at putting forth a document that would stand the test of time. But, they could not foresee what the nation would become. In ways it surpassed their greatest hopes and in others it confirmed their greatest fears. Because of such possibility they left the constitution amendable with process to accommodate such changes in time. They knew at its core the constitution would remain but that it's context must someday change.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Well said. We do still use the word regulated in that context.

Except I would point out that militia weren't soldiers. They were civilians. The US had an army to defeat the British. They could have said soldiers.

There is a reason they used both "militia" and "the people".

They didn't want the people to be restricted from owning and using weapons equivalent to common infantry soldiers (civilian irregular infantry soldier = militia).

However, the 14th amendment allows us to restrict people who don't follow the law as long as we consider due process of the law.

We have tools at our disposal which we can use to drastically reduce our violent crime problem, including gun crime. If we actually want to focus on using those tools for that purpose.

I don't believe the founding fathers and the writers of the Constitution we're just mumbling gibberish. They knew what they were doing. And they did an incredible job of it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they were mumbling gibberish either. They provided us with a solid foundation and left us room and reason to continue to build onto it and of it a more perfect union.
 
Phatguysrule said:
As I am sure you are aware, courts can also be influenced by personal bias. That happens on the left, as well as on the right.
Click to expand...

Obviously, but that just shows that the interpretation isn't clear, obvious, plain, etc. If it was, the courts wouldn't have had to interpret it multiple times, and wouldn't have come to varying conclusions about what it means.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Obviously, but that just shows that the interpretation isn't clear, obvious, plain, etc. If it was, the courts wouldn't have had to interpret it multiple times, and wouldn't have come to varying conclusions about what it means.

barfo
Click to expand...
As I've already said, I don't believe that means that at all. A biased Court will interpret anything any way they want.

It's our responsibility to make sure that we call them on it.

Look at the motives in the backgrounds of the judges who have ruled on it

They're very clear in the writing of the Constitution that their intention was to restrict the ability of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people. And that is the lens that I believe we should read the Constitution with.

Anything else leads to a steady erosion of individual rights until we reach autocratic rule.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
As I've already said, that doesn't mean that at all. A bias Court will interpret anything any way they want.

It's our responsibility to make sure that we call them on it.

Look at the motives in the backgrounds of the judges who have ruled on it
Click to expand...

Ok, justices who agree with you are reading it correctly, and justices who don't agree with you are reading it incorrectly due to bias...

Amazingly enough, I see it the same way! Justices who agree with me are reading it correctly, etc.

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Phatguysrule said:
This would be like saying since we weren't there to witness species actually evolve over billions of years we can't actually know that evolution is a true phenomenon.

We know it exists because there are markers that show it exists. We have collected and stored data that shows species unmistakably evolve.

Just like I have shared a few examples that we have on record which shows the term "well regulated" was commonly used at the time of writing in a way that makes the second amendment make perfect sense. And completely removes any conflict with any other part of the second amendment, and in fact, doesn't conflict with any other part of the Constitution as a whole. Rather, works with the rest of the Constitution, including the first, fourth, and 14th amendments (as well as others).



True. What I've shared here is my opinion. And yes, as I have said above, bias can impact the court's rulings.



My point is that for us to determine that the authors of the Bill of Rights were fools who wrote contradictory gibberish requires us to take a leap of faith which seems unsupported by evidence. It seems to make more sense for us to interpret their carefully and painstakingly written words and ideas in a manner that they would make sense at the time of writing.

The second amendment is very short and very concise. It takes definite mental gymnastics to misconstrue the very clear intention, in my opinion.

If you didn't hold the opinion that you just shared on gun ownership, I do not believe that you would be so resistant to understanding the text of the second amendment.

And I do not believe that any unbiased court will determine the text of the second amendment means anything other than what I have described. I do believe that it may be amended.

Though I do not know how we can amend it and still protect the rights that I firmly believe the authors intended.
Click to expand...
I am truly sorry for putting it this way, but the "mental gymnastics" you are using to support your opinion puts me in mind of the way the Republican Party is currently using mental gymnastics to justify pretty much anything they do. My personal opinion on gun ownership has nothing to do with my "resistance". I look at a couple of written sentences and interpret them according to my understanding of the English language. They are entirely open to interpretation according to the needs of the time. Period. Amen. Unfettered and unrestricted gun ownership in the 21st Century is the absolute definition of pure insanity. All you have to do is look at other "civilized" or "First World" countries and their approaches to gun ownership to understand just how stupid and clueless America is about firearms. I'm sick and tired of hearing about "our founder's intent". They are dead and gone. Voices from another time and age. Apples to oranges. What matters is the needs and priorities of today. And unfettered gun ownership is NOT one of those needs and priorities. Again, I am not being "resistant". I'm just being true to my understanding the English language.
 
Polls are at best snapshot. What is significant is not this or that number but trend. Since Harris became presumptive nominee every poll has moved in her direction. I don't know of a single poll in any state that has moved to Trump.

Never underestimate the power of a woman.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I am truly sorry for putting it this way, but the "mental gymnastics" you are using to support your opinion puts me in mind of the way the Republican Party is currently using mental gymnastics to justify pretty much anything they do. My personal opinion on gun ownership has nothing to do with my "resistance". I look at a couple of written sentences and interpret them according to my understanding of the English language. They are entirely open to interpretation according to the needs of the time. Period. Amen. Unfettered and unrestricted gun ownership in the 21st Century is the absolute definition of pure insanity. All you have to do is look at other "civilized" or "First World" countries and their approaches to gun ownership to understand just how stupid and clueless America is about firearms. I'm sick and tired of hearing about "our founder's intent". They are dead and gone. Voices from another time and age. Apples to oranges. What matters is the needs and priorities of today. And unfettered gun ownership is NOT one of those needs and priorities. Again, I am not being "resistant". I'm just being true to my understanding the English language.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I do not take offense. I appreciate the dialogue.

Never once have I suggested we should have unfettered or unrestricted gun ownership. I maintain that's not what the second amendment suggests either. This is what is called a straw man.

I didn't say America is in a good place with firearms or violence. In fact I have suggested alternative laws and methods that have been used in other first world countries with guns, who have lower violent crime rates than countries even without guns (or very few guns). So this would be another straw man.

By "mental gymnastics" do you mean looking at the words, verifying what they mean currently and historically, and sharing that knowledge on a public forum?

Do you find that those words mean something else? Can you support that with any evidence?

Are there any other amendments that restrict the rights of individuals?

Does it make more sense to you that we should interpret the terminology in the only way that we would have to assume the authors of the Constitution wrote a couple of sentences of gibberish as the second amendment, or do you think it makes more sense to interpret the words in a way commonly used at the time of writing that makes perfect sense in the context in which they were written?

Please explain what part of my logic is flawed to the point of being considered "mental gymnastics"?

Once again, we can change these documents. But there doesn't seem to be any will to do so.

*Edit* And again, we have ways to change this. We can update the Constitution if that is deemed necessary.
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
Thank you, I do not take offense. I appreciate the dialogue.

Never once have I suggested we should have unfettered or unrestricted gun ownership. I maintain that's not what the second amendment suggests either. This is what is called a straw man.

I didn't say America is in a good place with firearms or violence. In fact I have suggested alternative laws and methods that have been used in other first world countries with guns, who have lower violent crime rates than countries even without guns (or very few guns). So this would be another straw man.

By "mental gymnastics" do you mean looking at the words, verifying what they mean currently and historically, and sharing that knowledge on a public forum?

Do you find that those words mean something else? Can you support that with any evidence?

Are there any other amendments that restrict the rights of individuals?

Does it make more sense to you that we should interpret the terminology in the only way that we would have to assume the authors of the Constitution wrote a couple of sentences of gibberish as the second amendment, or do you think it makes more sense to interpret the words in a way commonly used at the time of writing that makes perfect sense in the context in which they were written?

Please explain what part of my logic is flawed to the point of being considered "mental gymnastics"?

Once again, we can change these documents. But there doesn't seem to be any will to do so.

*Edit* And again, we have ways to change this. We can update the Constitution if that is deemed necessary.
Click to expand...
You seem to consider "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed upon" to be mutually exclusive and unrelated. Took me some serious mental gymnastics to try and get there myself. and then I saw how incongruous it was. Personally, it's telling me there is plenty of room to put some safeguards in place with just those two phrases. And I'm not talking about other amendments, though the First Amendment has certainly taken a beating of late. And fortunately that pesky 21st Amendment is no longer around. But yes, pretty much any amendment can be twisted to restrict the rights of individuals depending on who is in office. Project 2025 springs to mind. But then, that pretty much suspends the Constitution......
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
You seem to consider "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed upon" to be mutually exclusive and unrelated. Took me some serious mental gymnastics to try and get there myself. and then I saw how incongruous it was. Personally, it's telling me there is plenty of room to put some safeguards in place with just those two phrases. And I'm not talking about other amendments, though the First Amendment has certainly taken a beating of late. And fortunately that pesky 21st Amendment is no longer around. But yes, pretty much any amendment can be twisted to restrict the rights of individuals depending on who is in office. Project 2025 springs to mind. But then, that pretty much suspends the Constitution......
Click to expand...
"Well regulated militia" literally means a capable group of civilians who can form infantry as needed.

Of course there's room for safeguards. The 14th amendment allows for that.

These problems are caused by criminals and violent people. They aren't caused by law abiding civilians. The 14th amendment allows us to restrict the rights of people based on due process of the law.

"Shall not be infringed" only protects people who aren't restricted by due process of the law. As covered in the 14th amendment.
 
Phatguysrule said:
"Well regulated militia" literally means a capable group of civilians who can form infantry as needed.

Of course there's room for safeguards. The 14th amendment allows for that.

These problems are caused by criminals and violent people. They aren't caused by law abiding civilians. The 14th amendment allows us to restrict the rights of people based on due process of the law.

"Shall not be infringed" only protects people who aren't restricted by due process of the law. As covered in the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

I was raised in a large all Dem, straight ticket, strong union family. Im one of a few that were not union but supports Unions, for the most part. We all, including girls and women, hunted game to provide a source of food. All my kids and even good percentage of grandkids now hunt, and they all are responsible gun owners. Some of them shoot recreational at local gun clubs and some have carry permits. Most are liberal democrats except a couple independents that lean left, including me, now. Some of my younger grandkids have already expressed they are not interested in hunting or owning a firearm, which is cool, others want too try, which is fine too.
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
Ok, justices who agree with you are reading it correctly, and justices who don't agree with you are reading it incorrectly due to bias...

Amazingly enough, I see it the same way! Justices who agree with me are reading it correctly, etc.

barfo
Click to expand...
Nope. I agree with the amendment as it was written and according to what the terminology meant at the time they wrote it.

I think they did an incredible job writing it to stand the test of time and to be updated as other relevant amendments are updated.

It is only confusing if you are trying not to understand it.

Again, I completely understand if you disagree with what it says and want the amendment updated. That is an understandable take and something we can debate as well.
 
I have been told serious hunters are responsible gun owners. They don't parade through the streets with guns strapped to their crotches. They understand guns are lethal weapons and not symbols of political fealty.
No hunters in my family since Jewish law forbids. But I have no problem with people who get food that way.
I remember Buck Williams who grew up in a family of dirt poor sharecroppers and the only meat they saw was what the men hunted.
Very different from a person with a hardware store of screws loose buying 50 guns.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Nope. I agree with the amendment as it was written and according to what the terminology meant at the time they wrote it.

I think they did an incredible job writing it to stand the test of time and to be updated as other relevant amendments are updated.

It is only confusing if you are trying not to understand it.
Click to expand...

If it is so easy to understand, how is it that your preferred understanding did not appear until 2008... thanks to the unbiased jurisprudence of Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy?

barfo
 
barfo said:
If it is so easy to understand, how is it that your preferred understanding did not appear until 2008... thanks to the unbiased jurisprudence of Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy?

barfo
Click to expand...
When did I say any judges are unbiased? Pretty sure I said bias exists on both sides.

However nobody was banning law abiding people from owning guns until that time frame so there was never a challenge to rule on.
 
Phatguysrule said:
When did I say any judges are unbiased? Pretty sure I said bias exists on both sides.
Click to expand...

There are... very fine judges, on both sides.

However nobody was banning law abiding people from owning guns until that time frame so there was never a challenge to rule on.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's accurate, were there not various gun control laws passed decades earlier?

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top