Judge Roberts backlash

Oralloy wrote:

The only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to determine what the Framers intended, and enforce their will.

Which is a function of perception.

It's easy to argue that they meant one thing or another.

Why did they mean "arms" means any future designed weapon but "freedom from search and seizure" doesn't include any future designed means of communication?

There is no "will of the Framers" other than how someone wants to interpret it.

Determining 'what they intended' is also a function of perception.

You really have no formal training in history or historiography, do you?

oralloy wrote:

Also, the "arms" thing is a bit more nuanced than your statement conveys. The term does not apply to any weapon whatsoever.

The right of non-militiamen to have arms is centered around self-defense. Weapons not very suitable for self defense would not apply.

The right of militiamen to have arms is centered around military weapons that an individual militiaman can maintain and operate himself. It would not extend to crew-served weapons.

Is that why Americans can purchase machine guns?

Why would you suggest they didn't intend "freedom from search and seizure" to include any future designed means of communication?

Also, the "arms" thing is a bit more nuanced than your statement conveys. The term does not apply to any weapon whatsoever.

Is that a yes?

Oralloy wrote:

Why would you suggest they didn't intend "freedom from search and seizure" to include any future designed means of communication?

Would you argue that Scalia and Thomas are wrong when they expand the powers of the police?

Oralloy wrote:

Also, the "arms" thing is a bit more nuanced than your statement conveys. The term does not apply to any weapon whatsoever.

I'm curious where the founders stated that was their intent.

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall within month thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock of a bore not smaller than seventeen balls to the pound, a sufficient bayonet and belt, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his muket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball, two spare flints, and a knapsack; and shall appear so armed, accountred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service as is herein directed, except that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

Each dragoon to furnish himself, at his own expence, with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands high, a good saddle, bridle, housing, holsters, and a breast plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs, a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouch box to contain twelve cartridges for pistols.

That each company of artillery and troop of horse shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly cloathed in regimentals to be furnished at their own expence, the colour and fashion of which to be determined by the brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

I guess you really don't know what you post,

your answer is "no?" ROFL

You see it as an error on my part, because you lack logic, and don't comprehend what you write yourself.

Well, I just hope all you gun happy folks are ready to take up arms for the government with your horses and knapsacks, muskets or firelocks and cartridges full of powder and balls.

Are you waiting at home ready to take up arms in the event you are called out for the government militia?

revelette wrote:

Are you waiting at home ready to take up arms in the event you are called out for the government militia?

No. To be ready I'd need a proper M-16, some grenades, and maybe a bazooka.