The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

Nonresponsive. Not surprised. I readily agreed in caps that governments have power over militias, they do. Have quoted my own post proving that, will not do so again.

But let's lay this farce to rest.

Folks, neither the text of the 2A nor the language of the Constitution is the law in the United States with respect to the individual right to bear arms. Surprising but true. The following case is the law as a matter of irrefutable fact.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Anyone interested can read the summary points in the syllabus, or delve deeper into desired areas. For our purposes here, though, the following is what matters most:

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

Now, feel free to disagree with the law, to microanalyze, nitpick, whine, waffle, deflect, curse, project, wish, pray, dissimulate, rationalize, quip, bitch, moan and deride it. Feel free to hold forth on the virtues of the dissent until the cows come home. Feel free to spend decades compiling all manner of analysis of the text of the 2A, Constitution, etc. Shout your disagreement with the law from the rooftops.

But until the holding of the case, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," is modified or overturned, rest assured, no amount of disagreement will prevent it from being the law of the land in the U.S. with respect to the individual right to bear arms.

Finis.

 

It's not their lack of education that has caused minorities to be under represented so significantly.

It's Republicans who work to make it hard for minority populations to have access to democracy.

We see them gerrymandered, purged from the voting roles, denied due to absurd and changing ID requirements, blocked from registering, issued polling places that have absurdly low availability of equipment (thus causing many hours of wait time to a population that is more likely to lose income due to wait time), etc., etc.

In the USA, we make it LEGAL to deny access to what should be (but is NOT) our full rights as citizens of a democracy.

Until you demonstrate that, I propose that your claim is total BS as a commitment to democracy is NOT present today in the USA.

 

Modern gerrymandering is a function of complying with the Voting Rights Act. This guaranteed minority representation and drew some weird districts. The other side of the coin is that by insuring minority representation, other districts naturally had less minority voters. The current Democrat-Complex lie narrative on gerrymandering seeks "redistricting on a dime," whereby Democrat litigation creates a constant redrawing of districts so that they maintain control of previous minority districts, but can then direct overflow hoping to flip other districts, and do so regularly. The "lie narrative" part is that GOP created or is responsible for modern gerrymandered districts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every Secretary of State in every State has a statutory duty to purge and update the voter rolls of dead, moved, illegal, improperly registered, etc. people. This is a colorblind process, and if it results in disproportionate impact on any identity group of people, too bad. If some kind of "racial norming" were applied to this crucial statutory duty of the SOS office, it would be illegal on its face. It's not like busing people into this or that school district because people are either dead, moved, registered improperly, etc. or they aren't. There is a definitive, well-documented paper trail in this process, and only a fool of a SOS would risk jail by trying to "get rid of the blacks" from the voting rolls.

No state turns voters from the polls without ID. Dozens of everyday activities require picture ID, Canada and Mexico both require it. Presuming that blacks are not competent to obtain ID is insulting and the very definition of LW "racism by condescension."

Didn't happen.

If only people could vote by mail or early. If only Democrats didn't run huge bus lines to less staffed polling places on purpose to clog and confuse poll workers (then holler RACISSSSSSSSS!)

Yeah.

 

The post you quoted is irrelevant to your absurd claim.

Would you like to back up your claim now?

 

I didn't expect it to. Your bizarre assertion assumed it did.

 

What do you think "arms" meant?

Keep digging. It's fun to watch.

 

In reality, 2A specifically ensured the right of citizens to have weapons.

You can seriously argue which weapons, but not the intent of the Citizens to be armed.

 

Today, gerrymandering is a weapon used to deny democracy.

This has been a continuing issue for many years and your characterization of time being a problem is absolute nonsense. There has been PLENTY of time. The problem is that the intent to deny democracy hasn't changed.

NEVER have I suggested that gerrymandering be used to deny fair representation by all groups.

Your claim that Republicans haven't been responsible for weaponizing gerrymandering is just plain nonsense. States with Republican majorities and control over redistricting have even been under court order with continuing oversight to insist on reasonably fair districting.

Republican Secretaries of State have in many instances have chosen to purge the roles of specific locations or other criteria which disproportionately affect those who Republicans want to deny democracy.

States have closed id locations disproportionately affecting minority groups. And, Republicans have definitely tried to deny access to polling places by those who don't have specific new forms of ID. Whether successful or not, these ARE assaults on our democracy.

Three states (WA, CO, OR) have 100% vote by mail.

And, your bus comment is a clear demonstration of purposefully engineered lack of access.

I'd also point out that Republicans in THIS election have denied access to voter registration of minority populations.

You mention busing. Just exactly what law did Republicans use to demand that elderly minorities be REMOVED from a bus planning to take them to register to vote?

 

When the voting rights act based monitoring of specific states was removed, the gerrymandering and other assaults on voting rights by Republicans against minorities got WORSE, not better.

Blaming that for some sort of inequity is blatant fake news.

Also, you ignored the several other mechanisms that Republicans have used and are continuing to use.

The problem here is that Republicans believe in party OVER democracy.

 

No it isn't. Stopped reading there.

 

Clever argument!

 

Already killed the 2A derail, will let this one run awhile for the sport of it.

 

The thing is, gerrymandering has absolutely NO purpose other than to deny democracy.

That is the key element of the definition of the word.

 

Your arguments all fly in the face of reality.

You have no rational defense of your absurd position, because the text of the Constitution is clearly in opposition to your child rants.

But please feel free to pretend you really believe what you claim.

 

I'm not so sure your version of reality is what we should choose for America's foundation.

 

Before the Heller decision, a group of linguists submitted an Amicus Brief analyzing, among many other , the word "arms" and the idiom "bear arms". as would have been understood at the time by any person with an average education.. And basically those who voted to pass the 2nd Amendment. They found tons of references. I

"Arms" overwhelmingly referred to "weapons of war". And in every single instance in which "bear arms" is used without any additional qualilfieers (as is used in the 2nd Amendment) it is used in its military idiomatic sense.

Arms.
“1. weapons of offence, or armour of defence.
2. A state of hostility
3. War in general. . . .
4. Action; the act of taking arms....
5. The ensigns armorial of a family.”
Samuel Johnson, 1 A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)​

Or

“By arms, we understand those instruments of offence generally made use of in war; such as firearms, swords, etc. By weapons, we more particularly mean instruments of other kinds (exclusive of fire-arms), made use of as offensive on special occasions.”
John Trusler, 1 The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis in original).​

As for the expression "bear arms" references abound Even in our own documents. The Declaration of Independence denounces the British Monarch for

“...constrain[ing] our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country.”
​

See? I told you learning was fun!. But you always thought it was boring, which is why you're so far behind. You have tons and tons of potential "fun" to make up for before you're ready to discuss this topic.

 

You say that, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't. It says, at least in my copy, "bear arms"

When was the last time you trained under the officers that Congress appointed to your well regulated militia?

 

The fact that losing an election is equated to "misery" is the part that is comical.

 

What's miserable is the vision for America held by Republicans today.

At one time, we believed in stuff like democracy, equality, education, having a positive influence toward a peaceful world, respect for the institutions and processes of our government, a free press, respect for truth, etc.

Every one of us can clearly recognize that we're moving AWAY from what America once stood for.

 

My reality is in the clear text of the Constitution.

I'm good with that.

 

Why, then, did they even mention Malitia?

 

I have to admit every my most stubborn child didn't continue to pretend to believe an obvious falsehood as well as you

So you're going to content that a weapon isn't an "arm" unless it's being used in a war?

Tell me about the history of America right after the Revolutionary War... Did President Washington "disarm" the citizens? Adams? Jefferson? Did any of the other POTUSs?

No... They didn't.

So... Tell us why not...

 

Your opinion.

The sky is falling.

Your opinion. I feel like we are returning to what made this country great to begin with.

 

Well, you're struggling with the 2A.

 

We began with a belief in democracy.

We're now seeing a belief in partisan victory regardless of methodology - all manner of disenfranchisement of citizens Republicans don't want to vote.

The idea THAT is what we were founded on couldn't be more silly if it were on Fox.