Why do you keep moving the goal posts?
You said wrote:
So much of what Trump says, and so much of what the teabaggers blab about shows a complete ignorance of the constitution. It's not that difficult a document to read, even teabaggers should be able to read it in an hour. Of course, understanding it, that could take them much, much longer.
Which is an attack on my side of the field. Obviously such a blatant attack needs to be responded to.
I said wrote:
I don't know Set, I know a lot of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution as well. Just look at the simply written 2nd amendment and how far it gets twisted around.
Easy peasy. now both sides can have some dumb asses that can't read the Constitution. But noooooooo... You gotta move them goal posts a bit.
You said wrote:
Oh yeah, and the conservatives are just brilliant in understanding the constitution, eh?
I made no suggestion that anyone was brilliant at anything. Now you've introduced a topic I am well versed in along with a cute little straw man to kick around.
You then went on to say wrote:
Such as the first clause of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . Article one, section eight details the powers explicitly given to Congress, including this paragraph: [Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;--which means Congress has the power to select what weapons the people may keep and bear under their power to provide for arming the militia.
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say to look at how simply it is written and write a diatribe about just the first 12 words. Puff out the chest, get the chin in the air, Setanta is going to learn us something about the second amendment!
Now look how far away from your original post we are. I simplify it for you
I said wrote:
Why does the last clause say the rights of the people instead of the right of the militia then? No one has ever argued that the government is not in charge of the militia, arming the militia, training the militia, but the people (read: not the militia) have a right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE the government runs the militia.
Of course all of this has bearing only on the Federal Govt and not the states, unfortunately. They seem fine with violating peoples gun rights left and right.
A normal person reading that would have seen that I agreed with some of what you have written. The federal govt can be in charge of the militia. They can arm it, train, teach it to love puppies, what ever. But, and this is important, the operative clause states, and remember when you said "as though lawyers ever write such things idly." The right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Doesn't say the right of the militia. correct? You do agree that it does say "the people
"? This is important to my followups of your continued movement of the goal posts.
now you say wrote:
The Supremes held in McDonald versus Chicago (2010) that the second amendment is incorporated by the fourteenth amendment's due process clause. Of course, your response dodges the question of whether or not any particular body of the electorate understand the constitution. But, in response to the vague claim that states violate people's gun rights, anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts and refer to the decision in McDonald versus Chicago--that's how it works. If the second amendment is now incorporated, the states would have the same right, even duty, to regulate the militia well. The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else.
States violate peoples gun rights all the time. The courts in some states just agree with that violation otherwise we would have uniform gun laws throughout the country. We can't even get states to recognize the permits of gun owners from other states. You say "anyone who feels that is the case can appeal the provisions of a law in Federal courts" and they do, believe me they do
Then, you have the audacity, after expressly saying "as though lawyers ever write such things idly." to say "The Militia Act of 1903 divides "the people" into the organized militia (i.e., the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, everybody else." So, then the drafters of the Constitution were idly writing stuff? I don't understand what you are attempting to say as you've complicated it. For the first part, the drafters were super serious that only the militia should have guns, but the rest is just gibberish that can be ignored because it disagrees with your "librul" frame of mind when gun law is in question? Which is it? Are "the people" the militia or not? Because,
I stated wrote:
"the people" is mentioned in several places within the Constitution yet it seems that only in the second amendment do liberals opposed to guns wish to make "the people" something that it is not.
. Now, as at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the militia consisted primarily
(I didn't realize I had to be so exact and this was going to be graded) white men between 17 and 45 as stated in the Militia act of 1792
I facetious asked you about women and old people based on my over estimation of your historical knowledge. I figured you would know that at the time only white men between 17-45 were primarily
the ones that made up the militia.
Boy did you prove me wrong.
Then you continue that based on the Militia Act of 1903 "The people" no longer exist. It is only the militia!
According to UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ
The Fourth Amendment provides: [494 U.S. 259, 265]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.
Why isn't the militia mentioned in this? Are the writing idly? I mentioned Heller not to say anything about gun rights or gun laws, but only to show that there, too, is "the people" referenced as being not the militia. Now you've made out that my "reference to The District of Columbia versus Heller is a glaring example of how vague and unsubstantiated your remarks are.".
I say bullshit, my reference directly substantiated my claim that "the people" does not directly reference "the militia" in the second amendment. In that, my reference is perfectly valid.
Now, with this last post you continue your strawman. I've never once argued anything about the second amendment beyond the fact that liberals like to tie themselves up in knots about it and enjoy making it something it is not. As you have exhibited in this chain of posts.
I've not made up a single thing with the exception of my belief that you knew that militias in the 1700 were white men between 17 and 45. I thought you knew that. I mean you were so quick to show the exceptions that I figured for sure you knew.
Finally, your last and final strawman of the day, as I am done with you for now,
you say wrote:
How about you get over yourself, and stop making sh*t up or attempting to twist the meanings? You have never even bothered to establish what my opinions on gun control are. You just come up with your "libruls think this or that" bullsh*t--it seems to me that you don't know much about anything.
I never cared what your opinion was. Still don't. But, I know that there are a whole bunch of liberals that have problems understanding the Constitution. Like I said.