Politics Official 2024 Presidential Election Thread

[PCmor7]

 

[jonnyboy]

The Bible was written so vague that you can interpret anything in it to fit someone’s narrative.

The bible is a collection of stories from multiple sources. It wasn’t ‘written’ in any particular way.

 

[jonnyboy]

I heard someone call Vance ‘ferret face’ and it’s really, really accurate.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

 

[STOMP]

The bible is a collection of stories from multiple sources. It wasn’t ‘written’ in any particular way.

Correct. Those stories were also retold many times before being written down in their current version (anyone remember the telephone game?) and of course the meanings of some words change over time. If the bible is the accepted word of god for the reader, I'd hope it's taken with some context to accept the general gist of the stories/lessons and not taken literally. Plus or minus, it's been 2000 years

STOMP

 

[MickZagger]

The bible is a collection of stories from multiple sources. It wasn’t ‘written’ in any particular way.

Sounds like a bunch of tall tales that the feeble eat up.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Only if you want to ignore plain English...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
tells you the intent is for the people to have the capability of maintaining their own freedom.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is incredibly clear.

Like I said.......

 

[Phatguysrule]

Like I said.......

How else could you possibly interpret it?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The description it gave for said arms were to enable militia. Which were civilian infantry.

You'd literally have to try and make it mean something other than it actually says to interpret it any other way than intending all law abiding civilians the right to keep and use infantry level weaponry in order to be the most capable civilian infantry possible.

I can understand making the argument for changing it. But I don't understand the argument that it means something else.

 

[Chris Craig]

How else could you possibly interpret it?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The description it gave for said arms were to enable militia. Which were civilian infantry.

You'd literally have to try and make it mean something other than it actually says to interpret it any other way than intending all law abiding civilians the right to keep and use infantry level weaponry in order to be the most capable civilian infantry possible.

I can understand making the argument for changing it. But I don't understand the argument that it means something else.

Were

 

[Phatguysrule]

Were

Yes. When the law was written. That's how we know what they intended.
We're supposed to interpret laws by the definitions commonly used at the time of writing.

If that is determined to be wrong then Congress (or the states) can update the law with an amendment.

That hasn't been done to the 2nd amendment.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

How else could you possibly interpret it?

You'd need to ask someone from the 18th century, I think. The intended meanings of "well regulated", "militia", and "bear arms" have been debated for well over a hundred years. It wasn't until DC vs Heller in 2008 that the Supreme Court got to establish an originalist (i.e. fundamentalist) interpretation of the 2nd amendment by a 5-4 majority, a huge win for conservative think-tanks and reactionary ghouls.

The notion that any of our founding legal documents can be interpreted in "plain English" is pretty flimsy to begin with. The Second Amendment has been deconstructed in every conceivable way by linguists and legal scholars for decades due to it's weird (even for the time) grammar and vague wording.

TLDR: It's certainly up for interpretation

 

[Phatguysrule]

You'd need to ask someone from the 18th century, I think. The intended meanings of "well regulated", "militia", and "bear arms" have been debated for well over a hundred years. It wasn't until DC vs Heller in 2008 that the Supreme Court got to establish an originalist (i.e. fundamentalist) interpretation of the 2nd amendment by a 5-4 majority, a huge win for conservative think-tanks and reactionary ghouls.

The notion that any of our founding legal documents can be interpreted in "plain English" is pretty flimsy to begin with. The Second Amendment has been deconstructed in every conceivable way by linguists and legal scholars for decades due to it's weird (even for the time) grammar and vague wording.

TLDR: It's certainly up for interpretation

Yeah, I would submit that it's been up for debate for people who want it to mean something other than it does (and did). It's very short. Very concise, and very clear.

"Well regulated" at the time of writing meant to be capable and reliable, calibrated correctly. This was the case in tge 1700s all the way through the early 19th century.
Excerpt from:
A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)

"With the general introduction of clocks and watches into use about a century
ago this kind of solar time went out of common use, since no well-regulated clock could keep the time correctly."

"Militia", at the time of writing meant civilian infantry. Or, the "people", as it clarified later in the same amendment.

Keeping and bearing arms is very clear. The definition of keep and bearing arms have not changed. Arguing that keeping and bearing arms was only used in the military context at the time is negated by the fact that the amendment specifically clarifies that it is intended for "militia" and "the people".

You don't misunderstand or misinterpret those things unless you want them to mean something other than they actually mean.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Yeah, I would submit that it's been up for debate for people who want it to mean something other than it does (and did). It's very short. Very concise, and very clear.

"Well regulated" at the time of writing meant to be capable and reliable, calibrated correctly. This was the case in tge 1700s all the way through the early 19th century.
Excerpt from:
A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)

"With the general introduction of clocks and watches into use about a century
ago this kind of solar time went out of common use, since no well-regulated clock could keep the time correctly."

Okay but for a second imagine a collection of people from the 1700s and their weaponry are not a clock.

What did being "well-regulated" mean in the context of a militia at the time? Was there some implied hierarchy? Who was doing the regulation? Were there established standards?

"Militia", at the time of writing meant civilian infantry. Or, the "people", as it clarified later in the same text.

Did the "people" at the time of writing include anyone other than white landowning whites? If you're arguing that the meaning has never changed, does this factor into your support of it?

Keeping and bearing arms is very clear. The definition of keep and bearing arms have not changed.

Serious question because I don't know: At the time of writing, would "Arms" have included siege cannons and mortars? How about a frigate?

You don't misunderstand or misinterpret those things unless you want them to mean something other than they actually mean.

Yeah sorry I don't think you can say "this means what it's always meant and anything else is misinterpretation" and be taken seriously. This isn't the word of god. This is the writing of long-dead aristocrats living in a time before the industrial revolution that we're sloppily applying to our own modern society with predictable results.

 

[Chris Craig]

Yes. When the law was written. That's how we know what they intended.
We're supposed to interpret laws by the definitions commonly used at the time of writing.

If that is determined to be wrong then Congress (or the states) can update the law with an amendment.

That hasn't been done to the 2nd amendment.

They intended for the people then to be able to bear arms in order to form a militia because the people then were the militia. We didn't yet have the military we do today.

It's an antiquated amendment. I think it should be updated.

I do believe in and support the right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves. It's caused a lot of problems in our society though. Gun culture has become a huge issue. They have become cool and fun. But, really they shouldn't be glamorized. They are killing machines.

We lead the world in shootings. It's a real problem. I know mental health and poverty are big parts of that. We have had several conversations on that.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Phatguysrule]

They intended for the people then to be able to bare arms in order to form a militia because the people then were the militia. We didn't yet have the military we do today.

It's an antiquated amendment. I think it should be updated.

I do believe in and support the right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves. It's caused a lot of problems in our society though. Gun culture has become a huge issue. They have become cool and fun. But, really they shouldn't be glamorized. They are killing machines.

We lead the world in shootings. It's a real problem. I know mental health and poverty are big parts of that. We have had several conversations on that.

Yes, I completely understand the argument for amending the constitution, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm just calling BS on the theory that we don't know what the intent was or what those words meant.

We have a process for updating the amendment and if we want to change it we can do that. I have no respect for the dishonesty being displayed buy politicians and intellectuals in trying to change our constitutional rights by implying that the words meant something other than we can easily confirm that they meant.

That is the kind of thing done by authoritarians and fascists to take more power.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Okay but for a second imagine a collection of people from the 1700s and their weaponry are not a clock.

What did being "well-regulated" mean in the context of a militia at the time? Was there some implied hierarchy? Who was doing the regulation? Were there established standards?

It didn't only relate to clocks. And the "regulation" was just an expected standard of operation.

The Constitution doesn't regulate people in any other amendment. It seems odd that it would do so in the 2nd. In fact, that would be opposed to everything the Constitution is about.

Some examples of the term " well regulated " in use and the dates they were published.

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Did the "people" at the time of writing include anyone other than white landowning whites? If you're arguing that the meaning has never changed, does this factor into your support of it?

If it only meant white landowners then it would have said white land owners. It said people because it meant all of the people. They knew that demographics would change. That wasn't the point. The point was that the people had the power to defend themselves. Even against a tyrannical government.

Serious question because I don't know: At the time of writing, would "Arms" have included siege cannons and mortars? How about a frigate?

Those are not weapons of militia or infantry. That is heavy artillery. The militia was expected to be able to use arms equivalent to the average infantry soldier. Which is again, why they referred to the protections interchangeably being for "militia" and "the people".

They clearly wanted all people (which is also defined in the constitution, so they didn't have to define it within this amendment) to have the right to own, transport, and practice with small arms that are typically carried by the typical infantry soldier.

This is specifically why they said that militia is so important. And then specified that the right of the people to keep and bear these kind of arms shall not be infringed.

The first amendment protects the right of the people to speak and peaceably assemble. The second amendment also protects the rights of the same "people".

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the first amendment only protects the right of white landowners?

The 14th amendment spells out what "persons" are protected by the Constitution. Are we now trying to claim that the definition of persons and people used to be different?

I don't think so.

Yeah sorry I don't think you can say "this means what it's always meant and anything else is misinterpretation" and be taken seriously. This isn't the word of god. This is the writing of long-dead aristocrats living in a time before the industrial revolution that we're sloppily applying to our own modern society with predictable results.

I disagree. I think they did an admirable job. And it's been updated to clarify who's right are protected by the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't restrict any people. It restricts the government. It spells out the rights of the people. So no, the 2nd amendment obviously wouldn't be including language to restrict the people.

And of course they don't think it's the word of God, nor do I. That's why they gave us the ability to change the Constitution via amendments. Which, again, we have used.

But we haven't used it to change the 2nd amendment.

I understand if that frustrates some people. But simply subverting it by trying to rewrite our history is not a noble or even respectable goal.

From my perspective we have solutions in front of us to address the gun violence problems. We are just refusing to institute those solutions because they would cost a lot of wealthy people and corporations (lobbyists) a lot of money, and shift some power from the upper class toward the middle class and poor (again, this is what large corporations and industries hire lobbyists to prevent).

 

[Chris Craig]

Yes, I completely understand the argument for amending the constitution, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm just calling BS on the theory that we don't know what the intent was or what those words meant.

We have a process for updating the amendment and if we want to change it we can do that. I have no respect for the dishonesty being displayed buy politicians and intellectuals in trying to change our constitutional rights by implying that the words meant something other than we can easily confirm that they meant.

That is the kind of thing done by authoritarians and fascists to take more power.

I think the meaning is pretty obvious. I don't think it means anything different than it did then. The founders wrote this amendment in the context of the time. Times change. It's kind of at least in part obsolete.

That second part though is very clear and remains relevant today. Americans have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

 

[Chris Craig]

Okay but for a second imagine a collection of people from the 1700s and their weaponry are not a clock.

What did being "well-regulated" mean in the context of a militia at the time? Was there some implied hierarchy? Who was doing the regulation? Were there established standards?



Did the "people" at the time of writing include anyone other than white landowning whites? If you're arguing that the meaning has never changed, does this factor into your support of it?



Serious question because I don't know: At the time of writing, would "Arms" have included siege cannons and mortars? How about a frigate?



Yeah sorry I don't think you can say "this means what it's always meant and anything else is misinterpretation" and be taken seriously. This isn't the word of god. This is the writing of long-dead aristocrats living in a time before the industrial revolution that we're sloppily applying to our own modern society with predictable results.

Well regulated doesn't mean for it to be controlled or to keep it in check. In the context of the constitution it means to keep it maintained and stocked with both soldiers (then citizens) and weapons so that the nation could be defended.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

How else could you possibly interpret it?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The description it gave for said arms were to enable militia. Which were civilian infantry.

You'd literally have to try and make it mean something other than it actually says to interpret it any other way than intending all law abiding civilians the right to keep and use infantry level weaponry in order to be the most capable civilian infantry possible.

I can understand making the argument for changing it. But I don't understand the argument that it means something else.

Don't you find the terms "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" to be entirely contradictory????? I usually agree with you on a great deal of stuff, but quit while you are ahead. I know what it says and I know how we each interpret it. Civilians running around with unlimited and unrestricted (and unaccounted for) guns is NOT a "well regulated militia" no matter how hard you try to twist reality. The Second Amendment is wide open to interpretation by whoever holds the power. I'm not suggesting changing anything whatsoever. I just ask for an interpretation that fits this particular time in history. You know, 233ish years after the Constitution was written....in another place and time more appropriate than the current interpretation.

 

[crandc]

Trump recycled Harris would not allow anyone to say Merry Christmas.

Aside from the fact that she isn't, and that such a rule would be unenforceable, there's method in tne stupidity.

Harris's husband is Jewish. So are two Veepstakes finalists.

"The Jews are taking over your country."

 

[Phatguysrule]

Don't you find the terms "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" to be entirely contradictory????? I usually agree with you on a great deal of stuff, but quit while you are ahead. I know what it says and I know how we each interpret it. Civilians running around with unlimited and unrestricted (and unaccounted for) guns is NOT a "well regulated militia" no matter how hard you try to twist reality. The Second Amendment is wide open to interpretation by whoever holds the power. I'm not suggesting changing anything whatsoever. I just ask for an interpretation that fits this particular time in history. You know, 233ish years after the Constitution was written....in another place and time more appropriate than the current interpretation.

Yes, it would be contradictory and not make sense if you want well regulated to be a restriction of individual rights. Luckily, as I showed above, the term "well regulated" meant to be high functioning, capable, and reliable at the time of the writing and for well over 100 years after. I showed many instances of the term used in that way.

High functioning and capable is the only way you could interpret "well regulated" without the 2nd being contradictory. So that is obviously the way we should interpret it, especially with the knowledge that the term was commonly used in in thet way in writings of the time.

No other amendment restricts civilians. They all restrict government. It wouldn't make sense for the 2nd amendment to restrict civilians in a document which solely exists to restrict government control of civilians.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Yes, it would be contradictory and not make sense if you want well regulated to be a restriction of individual rights. Luckily, as I showed above, the term "well regulated" meant to be high functioning, capable, and reliable at the time of the writing and for well over 100 years after. I showed many instances of the term used in that way.

High functioning and capable is the only way you could interpret "well regulated" without the 2nd being contradictory. So that is obviously the way we should interpret it, especially with the knowledge that the term was commonly used in writings of the time.

No other amendment restricts civilians. They all restrict government. It wouldn't make sense for the 2nd amendment to restrict civilians in a document which solely exists to restrict government control of civilians.

I'll just have to declare an impasse. I disagree and you are not going to change my mind. The fact that we are having this debate only proves my original assertion. Adjectives like "obviously" and "luckily" are highly subjective and only underline that you are making your own interpretation. And as far as I am personally concerned, the writings of the time (and the basis behind them) are no longer relevant.....it's time for common sense in a country that doesn't even remember what the term means.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'll just have to declare an impasse. I disagree and you are not going to change my mind. The fact that we are having this debate only proves my original assertion. Adjectives like "obviously" and "luckily" are highly subjective and only underline that you are making your own interpretation. And as far as I am personally concerned, the writings of the time (and the basis behind them) are no longer relevant.....it's time for common sense in a country that doesn't even remember what the term means.

Once again, you are free to disagree with the rights the constitution says we have.

We have a way to update the document to clarify those rights when needed.

But I've shown very clearly that the only way the words of the second amendment don't make sense is if you don't want them to. They were very clear and concise. And they wrote it to stand the test of time.

It's honestly very impressive to me.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Well regulated doesn't mean for it to be controlled or to keep it in check. In the context of the constitution it means to keep it maintained and stocked with both soldiers (then citizens) and weapons so that the nation could be defended.

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.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Once again, you are free to disagree with the rights the constitution says we have.

We have a way to update the document to clarify those rights when needed.

But I've shown very clearly that the only way the words of the second amendment don't make sense is if you don't want them to. They were very clear and concise. And they wrote it to stand the test of time.

It's honestly very impressive to me.

Apparently you're easily impressed in particular instances. And far too self assured. And yep, the words are "clear and concise" as mud.....again, you just gave me your interpretation versus mine. You keep making my original point for me.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Apparently you're easily impressed in particular instances. And far too self assured. And yep, the words are "clear and concise" as mud.....again, you just gave me your interpretation versus mine. You keep making my original point for me.

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. 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.

 

[barfo]

Arguing against the view that the 2nd amendment is plain English that needs no interpretations is that the courts have taken different positions on its meaning over the years.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

I think the meaning is pretty obvious. I don't think it means anything different than it did then. The founders wrote this amendment in the context of the time. Times change. It's kind of at least in part obsolete.

That second part though is very clear and remains relevant today. Americans have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed.

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.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Arguing against the view that the 2nd amendment is plain English that needs no interpretations is that the courts have taken different positions on its meaning over the years.

barfo

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.