New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Some have been talking about intent of words in a law or in the Constitution..

ITALIA

Mayor
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What was the intent of the founding fathers? Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds. How have we and our courts interpreted that intent? I would say pretty broadly and I would say far from the Founding Fathers intent. Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What was the intent of the founding fathers? Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds. How have we and our courts interpreted that intent? I would say pretty broadly and I would say far from the Founding Fathers intent. Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
Yes, however, the key line is "necessary for the securirty of a free state."

This part has clearly been debunked. Back then it might have held true.

Also, do we really want to take the words of slaveholders and those that exterminated Native Americans at face value?
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What was the intent of the founding fathers? Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds. How have we and our courts interpreted that intent? I would say pretty broadly and I would say far from the Founding Fathers intent. Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
"Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted."

So untrue.

It not ONLY "Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds.", it is painfully obvious.

IF, as YOU assertain here, a "well regulated Militia", was in fact their desire, how would that goal be met?

The sad fact of the matter is that there was ONE thing that they SPECIFICALLY said, " shall not be infringed", upon, was there not?

So what is it that was specifically singled out as not to be infringed upon? According to the words that YOU presented us with here?

Was it not in fact, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

For it appears that THEY, unlike so many on the left today apparently, fully understood that there could be no militia without the PEOPLE and their arms.

Now I understand how this whole, "some people have a right I fear" is perfectly logical in the circle of dems/l ibs, I do, but the intent of the right is perfectly clear. ONE thing was specifically addressed and it was NOT a militia, it was the right of the people to arms.

The only confusion in any of this comes from desperately trying to convince people that what is clearly and specifically addressed somehow is NOT what was intended to be addressed.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
"Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted."

So untrue.

It not ONLY "Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds.", it is painfully obvious.

IF, as YOU assertain here, a "well regulated Militia", was in fact their desire, how would that goal be met?

The sad fact of the matter is that there was ONE thing that they SPECIFICALLY said, " shall not be infringed", upon, was there not?

So what is it that was specifically singled out as not to be infringed upon? According to the words that YOU presented us with here?

Was it not in fact, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

For it appears that THEY, unlike so many on the left today apparently, fully understood that there could be no militia without the PEOPLE and their arms.

Now I understand how this whole, "some people have a right I fear" is perfectly logical in the circle of dems/l ibs, I do, but the intent of the right is perfectly clear. ONE thing was specifically addressed and it was NOT a militia, it was the right of the people to arms.

The only confusion in any of this comes from desperately trying to convince people that what is clearly and specifically addressed somehow is NOT what was intended to be addressed.
I believe you are misreading the intent. But even if you aren't:

Why are we worried about the word for word intent of people who had slaves and exterminated the native American race?

I for one, couldn't care less about what they intended, etc.

The founders didn't intend for women or landless people to vote, or black people. Do you follow this as well?
 

ITALIA

Mayor
"Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted."

So untrue.

It not ONLY "Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds.", it is painfully obvious.

IF, as YOU assertain here, a "well regulated Militia", was in fact their desire, how would that goal be met?

The sad fact of the matter is that there was ONE thing that they SPECIFICALLY said, " shall not be infringed", upon, was there not?

So what is it that was specifically singled out as not to be infringed upon? According to the words that YOU presented us with here?

Was it not in fact, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

For it appears that THEY, unlike so many on the left today apparently, fully understood that there could be no militia without the PEOPLE and their arms.

Now I understand how this whole, "some people have a right I fear" is perfectly logical in the circle of dems/l ibs, I do, but the intent of the right is perfectly clear. ONE thing was specifically addressed and it was NOT a militia, it was the right of the people to arms.

The only confusion in any of this comes from desperately trying to convince people that what is clearly and specifically addressed somehow is NOT what was intended to be addressed.
I see. With the second amendment we don't have to do exactly what the words say but as we interpret them to mean. Unlike the subsidies for ACA the activist Republican judges insist on following the words exactly and not the intent. Got it.
 

Colorforms

Senator
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What was the intent of the founding fathers? Seems they were pretty clear at least in their words and in their minds. How have we and our courts interpreted that intent? I would say pretty broadly and I would say far from the Founding Fathers intent. Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
Like most liberals, you ignore the parts that work against you. Such as, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Liberals can never win a discussion honestly.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
Like most liberals, you ignore the parts that work against you. Such as, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Liberals can never win a discussion honestly.
Do you support exterminating native Americans and slaves?
Do you think women should vote?
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
I believe you are misreading the intent. But even if you aren't:

Why are we worried about the word for word intent of people who had slaves and exterminated the native American race?

I for one, couldn't care less about what they intended, etc.

The founders didn't intend for women or landless people to vote, or black people. Do you follow this as well?
ALL people have had slaves, sport. Hate to burst your "hate America First" bubble and all but the sad fact of the matter is that some of those people also did NOT own slaves and some of those people helped to eventually end slavery so if we are going to lump them all together why limit it to ONLY lumping them into groups who did things wrong?

As for your silly assed, "native American race" being "exterminated", assertation, IF that were true why is it we still have people of "native American race" today?

Words have meanings. If English is not your first language as I suspect, look up, "exterminate" and get back to me.

Also, the people who were here when those evil assed white folks came to exterminate them, are you of the opinion that THEY just one day sprang up from the marshlands, hillsides, forest and fields and were just "there" from that time until they were exterminated or what?

Tell you what, how about you try to read up on the history of the Americas PRIOR to all the evil white folks and let me know if you see any mention of, oh, I don't know, wars, slavery, cannablism perhaps, sh it like THAT or if every time one group ran up on another one they all sat around the camp fire, smoked their peace pipes, roasted maze, sang kum-ba-ya and rubbed one another.

Then do the same thing for that continent of Africa. Read about how all of them were just peacefully following the antelops around when the mean white came and took them all away. Hell, never mind history, read about how sweet all the black folks there treat one another today and then get back to me about how ugly the US is, 'k?

"I for one, couldn't care less about what they intended, etc. "

Well no sh it. You DO have a way of over stating the obvious.......

THAT has been apparent since your first post on here. That is the only reason anyone would be so desperate to belittle and alter our nation, isn't it now?
 

Guthrie

Mayor
ALL people have had slaves, sport. Hate to burst your "hate America First" bubble and all but the sad fact of the matter is that some of those people also did NOT own slaves and some of those people helped to eventually end slavery so if we are going to lump them all together why limit it to ONLY lumping them into groups who did things wrong?

As for your silly assed, "native American race" being "exterminated", assertation, IF that were true why is it we still have people of "native American race" today?

Words have meanings. If English is not your first language as I suspect, look up, "exterminate" and get back to me.

Also, the people who were here when those evil assed white folks came to exterminate them, are you of the opinion that THEY just one day sprang up from the marshlands, hillsides, forest and fields and were just "there" from that time until they were exterminated or what?

Tell you what, how about you try to read up on the history of the Americas PRIOR to all the evil white folks and let me know if you see any mention of, oh, I don't know, wars, slavery, cannablism perhaps, sh it like THAT or if every time one group ran up on another one they all sat around the camp fire, smoked their peace pipes, roasted maze, sang kum-ba-ya and rubbed one another.

Then do the same thing for that continent of Africa. Read about how all of them were just peacefully following the antelops around when the mean white came and took them all away. Hell, never mind history, read about how sweet all the black folks there treat one another today and then get back to me about how ugly the US is, 'k?

"I for one, couldn't care less about what they intended, etc. "

Well no sh it. You DO have a way of over stating the obvious.......

THAT has been apparent since your first post on here. That is the only reason anyone would be so desperate to belittle and alter our nation, isn't it now?
Okay, you are right some Native Americans survived. So I should have wrote "intended to exterminate."

You are also right that other nations have had slaves. I guess the next time a murderer gets arrested he can respond "I am innocent because other people have committed murder."

Back to the point we were discussing, your desire to take the founding fathers as exactly as they spoke, verbatim as they will, is false under the reasons I gave. They were not perfect people, thus they could have been wrong. Slavery, genocidal campaigns and anti-womens rights are but a few examples of this. Thus anyone committed to taking their words as de-facto law are simply foolish.

To make it clear for you: If they were wrong on slavery and women's rights then they can be wrong on gun control. once it is established they are not infallible, then we can drop the pretense that we are slaves to words written a few centuries ago in spite of the changing dynamic of the world and our country.

In fact, there are a plethora of free countries out there in the world where citizens do not have the right to have a gun.

As for your anti-American remarks, I have little to say other then to comment that I have never hated America in my life. I do disagree with policies, particularly the ones I cited like slavery and murdering native Americans, which you defended like a true genocide denier and slave apologetic. Your rabid defense of these things is peculiar to me. But the idea that we call people anti-Americans for disagreeing with slavery is a typical tactic of those who cannot argue on the merits.

In fact, it is deeply totalitarian. So Stalin, could opposes of his brutal polices anti-soviet and capitalist stooges. In NAZI Germany they were called Jew lovers. Thats quite a class of people your reasoning belongs with.

If you think criticizing slavery is anti-American then I am guilty as charged. I think it is an affront to people who were slaves. I am proud to say I am an American, against slavery and against genocide.

Further, American culture I am deeply in love with and it pervades my life from Music, movies, books, sex, everything. Yopu'll note my picture is of Woody Guthrie.

But people who are committed to American violence around the world, like yourselves, will defend American atrocities no matter how awful they are. Even if its mass genocide against Native Americans or slaves. So, under your reasoning, if one can call emotional ramblings such, Sadaam Hussein(incidentally he was a US ally using US weapons or this) didn't committed genocidal polices against the kurds, cause some are still alive.

Yeah, to people like you an action is moral cause America did it. Well you can read that in the NAZI archives too.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
What incredibly ridiculous questions.
Those who follow men from two centuries ago word for word need to be reminded that they were deeply flawed and hence not worthy of verbatim subservience.

However, after the response from him/her, I am not sure the question was so ridiculous.
 

Colorforms

Senator
Those who follow men from two centuries ago word for word need to be reminded that they were deeply flawed and hence not worthy of verbatim subservience.

However, after the response from him/her, I am not sure the question was so ridiculous.
Ah, so thefounding documents are meerly a suggestion, and that we can make this stuff up as we go along. "Those men who escaped tyranny to create a free society didn't know what they were doing".

This is why liberals are considered anti-American.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
Ah, so thefounding documents are meerly a suggestion, and that we can make this stuff up as we go along. "Those men who escaped tyranny to create a free society didn't know what they were doing".

This is why liberals are considered anti-American.
Okay, you are right some Native Americans survived. So I should have wrote "intended to exterminate."

You are also right that other nations have had slaves. I guess the next time a murderer gets arrested he can respond "I am innocent because other people have committed murder."

Back to the point we were discussing, your desire to take the founding fathers as exactly as they spoke, verbatim as they will, is false under the reasons I gave. They were not perfect people, thus they could have been wrong. Slavery, genocidal campaigns and anti-womens rights are but a few examples of this. Thus anyone committed to taking their words as de-facto law are simply foolish.

To make it clear for you: If they were wrong on slavery and women's rights then they can be wrong on gun control. once it is established they are not infallible, then we can drop the pretense that we are slaves to words written a few centuries ago in spite of the changing dynamic of the world and our country.

In fact, there are a plethora of free countries out there in the world where citizens do not have the right to have a gun.

As for your anti-American remarks, I have little to say other then to comment that I have never hated America in my life. I do disagree with policies, particularly the ones I cited like slavery and murdering native Americans, which you defended like a true genocide denier and slave apologetic. Your rabid defense of these things is peculiar to me. But the idea that we call people anti-Americans for disagreeing with slavery is a typical tactic of those who cannot argue on the merits.

In fact, it is deeply totalitarian. So Stalin, could opposes of his brutal polices anti-soviet and capitalist stooges. In NAZI Germany they were called Jew lovers. Thats quite a class of people your reasoning belongs with.

If you think criticizing slavery is anti-American then I am guilty as charged. I think it is an affront to people who were slaves. I am proud to say I am an American, against slavery and against genocide.

Further, American culture I am deeply in love with and it pervades my life from Music, movies, books, sex, everything. Yopu'll note my picture is of Woody Guthrie.

But people who are committed to American violence around the world, like yourselves, will defend American atrocities no matter how awful they are. Even if its mass genocide against Native Americans or slaves. So, under your reasoning, if one can call emotional ramblings such, Sadaam Hussein(incidentally he was a US ally using US weapons or this) didn't committed genocidal polices against the kurds, cause some are still alive.

Yeah, to people like you an action is moral cause America did it. Well you can read that in the NAZI archives too.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
Ah, so thefounding documents are meerly a suggestion, and that we can make this stuff up as we go along. "Those men who escaped tyranny to create a free society didn't know what they were doing".

This is why liberals are considered anti-American.
I am not a liberal.
But yes, we have kinda been doing it as we went along, adding amendments, abolishing slavery, extending women's rights, child labor laws, etc, etc,etc.

Anti-American is the term used by those out of counter-arguments, ignorant and easy to mentally manipulate.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
I see. With the second amendment we don't have to do exactly what the words say but as we interpret them to mean. Unlike the subsidies for ACA the activist Republican judges insist on following the words exactly and not the intent. Got it.
HUH?

"With the second amendment we don't have to do exactly what the words say but as we interpret them to mean."

Wrong. Your problem is that you do not want to DO exactly what the words say. What specifically is it that the words actually SAY is the right being discussed in this 2ad amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Well, according to the words as they were written that would be the right, "to keep and bear arms", correct?

And to whom exactly is it this right is guarenteed, according to the words as they were written?
Well THAT would be, "of the people", it would appear.......

What is the matter with you? Why do you not get this, it isn't difficult.

As politely as I could I showed you that what you are CLAIMING and what actually IS are two very distinctive, very different things.

I'll try again;

You presented, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", agreed?

THEN you stated, "Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
"

I agreed with the part about, "Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read..", but THEN pointed out the error in the way you ended that question with, "and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.", because the "well regulated Militia", was, and is, NOT the right that was being guarenteed in the 2ad amendment of the Bill of Rights.

What WAS, and IS, guarenteed in the 2ad amendment to the Bill of rights is the right to bear arms. In order to form a well regulated militia is a reason WHY the right of the people to bear arms was, and is, guarenteed.

IF we accept the words to be what they were written to be.

If we have an agenda to try to rid others of a right that they are guarenteed and we fear............well..........THAT is where any "confusion" comes into play, isn't it now?
 

Colorforms

Senator
Okay, you are right some Native Americans survived. So I should have wrote "intended to exterminate."

You are also right that other nations have had slaves. I guess the next time a murderer gets arrested he can respond "I am innocent because other people have committed murder."

Back to the point we were discussing, your desire to take the founding fathers as exactly as they spoke, verbatim as they will, is false under the reasons I gave. They were not perfect people, thus they could have been wrong. Slavery, genocidal campaigns and anti-womens rights are but a few examples of this. Thus anyone committed to taking their words as de-facto law are simply foolish.

To make it clear for you: If they were wrong on slavery and women's rights then they can be wrong on gun control. once it is established they are not infallible, then we can drop the pretense that we are slaves to words written a few centuries ago in spite of the changing dynamic of the world and our country.

In fact, there are a plethora of free countries out there in the world where citizens do not have the right to have a gun.

As for your anti-American remarks, I have little to say other then to comment that I have never hated America in my life. I do disagree with policies, particularly the ones I cited like slavery and murdering native Americans, which you defended like a true genocide denier and slave apologetic. Your rabid defense of these things is peculiar to me. But the idea that we call people anti-Americans for disagreeing with slavery is a typical tactic of those who cannot argue on the merits.

In fact, it is deeply totalitarian. So Stalin, could opposes of his brutal polices anti-soviet and capitalist stooges. In NAZI Germany they were called Jew lovers. Thats quite a class of people your reasoning belongs with.

If you think criticizing slavery is anti-American then I am guilty as charged. I think it is an affront to people who were slaves. I am proud to say I am an American, against slavery and against genocide.

Further, American culture I am deeply in love with and it pervades my life from Music, movies, books, sex, everything. Yopu'll note my picture is of Woody Guthrie.

But people who are committed to American violence around the world, like yourselves, will defend American atrocities no matter how awful they are. Even if its mass genocide against Native Americans or slaves. So, under your reasoning, if one can call emotional ramblings such, Sadaam Hussein(incidentally he was a US ally using US weapons or this) didn't committed genocidal polices against the kurds, cause some are still alive.

Yeah, to people like you an action is moral cause America did it. Well you can read that in the NAZI archives too.
So where in tje constitution does it endorse slavery or curtailing women's rights? Your argument is, "they were flawed, so they couldn't have created something workable". Your other premise is that we are less flawed. I would argue that premise.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
HUH?

"With the second amendment we don't have to do exactly what the words say but as we interpret them to mean."

Wrong. Your problem is that you do not want to DO exactly what the words say. What specifically is it that the words actually SAY is the right being discussed in this 2ad amendment to the Bill of Rights?

Well, according to the words as they were written that would be the right, "to keep and bear arms", correct?

And to whom exactly is it this right is guarenteed, according to the words as they were written?
Well THAT would be, "of the people", it would appear.......

What is the matter with you? Why do you not get this, it isn't difficult.

As politely as I could I showed you that what you are CLAIMING and what actually IS are two very distinctive, very different things.

I'll try again;

You presented, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", agreed?

THEN you stated, "Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.
"

I agreed with the part about, "Should we interpret just the words exactly as they are read..", but THEN pointed out the error in the way you ended that question with, "and only have "well regulated Militia" for the necessary security of a free State? That's what the Founding Fathers said they wanted.", because the "well regulated Militia", was, and is, NOT the right that was being guarenteed in the 2ad amendment of the Bill of Rights.

What WAS, and IS, guarenteed in the 2ad amendment to the Bill of rights is the right to bear arms. In order to form a well regulated militia is a reason WHY the right of the people to bear arms was, and is, guarenteed.

IF we accept the words to be what they were written to be.

If we have an agenda to try to rid others of a right that they are guarenteed and we fear............well..........THAT is where any "confusion" comes into play, isn't it now?
I see that you have no response to me raping you with my page long comment. Good idea.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
Okay, you are right some Native Americans survived. So I should have wrote "intended to exterminate."

You are also right that other nations have had slaves. I guess the next time a murderer gets arrested he can respond "I am innocent because other people have committed murder."

Back to the point we were discussing, your desire to take the founding fathers as exactly as they spoke, verbatim as they will, is false under the reasons I gave. They were not perfect people, thus they could have been wrong. Slavery, genocidal campaigns and anti-womens rights are but a few examples of this. Thus anyone committed to taking their words as de-facto law are simply foolish.

To make it clear for you: If they were wrong on slavery and women's rights then they can be wrong on gun control. once it is established they are not infallible, then we can drop the pretense that we are slaves to words written a few centuries ago in spite of the changing dynamic of the world and our country.

In fact, there are a plethora of free countries out there in the world where citizens do not have the right to have a gun.

As for your anti-American remarks, I have little to say other then to comment that I have never hated America in my life. I do disagree with policies, particularly the ones I cited like slavery and murdering native Americans, which you defended like a true genocide denier and slave apologetic. Your rabid defense of these things is peculiar to me. But the idea that we call people anti-Americans for disagreeing with slavery is a typical tactic of those who cannot argue on the merits.

In fact, it is deeply totalitarian. So Stalin, could opposes of his brutal polices anti-soviet and capitalist stooges. In NAZI Germany they were called Jew lovers. Thats quite a class of people your reasoning belongs with.

If you think criticizing slavery is anti-American then I am guilty as charged. I think it is an affront to people who were slaves. I am proud to say I am an American, against slavery and against genocide.

Further, American culture I am deeply in love with and it pervades my life from Music, movies, books, sex, everything. Yopu'll note my picture is of Woody Guthrie.

But people who are committed to American violence around the world, like yourselves, will defend American atrocities no matter how awful they are. Even if its mass genocide against Native Americans or slaves. So, under your reasoning, if one can call emotional ramblings such, Sadaam Hussein(incidentally he was a US ally using US weapons or this) didn't committed genocidal polices against the kurds, cause some are still alive.

Yeah, to people like you an action is moral cause America did it. Well you can read that in the NAZI archives too.

To begin with I defended none of the actions you mentioned. All I did was point out how wrong it was for you to speak as if everyone in that time was a slave owner intent on killing off every native American they could find just because some of them did and may very well have...

As for my anti-American assertation toward you, well THAT is based upon the fact that I have yet to see ANY post from you, on ANY matter, where you defended and supported, no, hell, just didn't actually BLAME the US.

And, yeah, I saw 'ol Arlo there, but the fact of the matter is that you can try to wrap your outside in all of the, baseball, apple pie, rock and roll, whatever American culture you like, it doesn't hide what you actually are INSIDE.

Kinda like trying to roll a terd in chocolate and calling it a candy bar....... You will be the only one willing to bite into it, sport.
 

Guthrie

Mayor
So where in tje constitution does it endorse slavery or curtailing women's rights? Your argument is, "they were flawed, so they couldn't have created something workable". Your other premise is that we are less flawed. I would argue that premise.
You seem to misunderstand me.

The founding fathers were not perfect, as I have shown. Thus, we do not have to be slaves to the exact words they wrote. We are free to fix and adjust where necessary. Why? Cause they were far, far, far from from perfect at best, and at worst, genocidal murderers.
 

Colorforms

Senator
You seem to misunderstand me.

The founding fathers were not perfect, as I have shown. Thus, we do not have to be slaves to the exact words they wrote. We are free to fix and adjust where necessary. Why? Cause they were far, far, far from from perfect at best, and at worst, genocidal murderers.
And we're not? It is because we are flawed that it is more important than ever that we have a code to live by. The constitution is that code. Reinterpreting it at your liesure is nothing more than inviting anarchy and chaos. "Today we don't need people to have guns" and so we turn into Palestine with the government crushing us and little recourse.
 
Top