Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be post in the main articles.
I once saw a clip from a very old episode of the soap opera The Young and the Restless, that was so powerful, I never forgot it.
A greedy landlord planned to bulldoze some low income apartments to make room for more expensive ones. As a result, a bunch of poor senior citizens were being forced to move out.
One of them came to his office.
“You think you got it all figured out,” she said to him. “Well one of these days, someone smarter than you are is gona come along and give you a taste of your own medicine, and skin you right down to the bone! Then you’ll be poor like the rest of us. Only, you’ll be all alone. At least we have each other!”
The rich landlord looked slightly frightened by the old lady’s prophecy.
“Because if there’s two things you learn growing old,” she said as she walked out of his office, “one is nobody ever has anything all figured out, and the other is…”
She grabbed the cardboard cut-out of the fancy buildings he was planning to build and weakly broke it in half over her knee.
“nothing lasts forever”
Pumpkin Person 
the original meaning complements original intent in the sense that…
it should be rare that the original intent differs markedly from the original meaning.
but original meaning SERVES original intent. original intent is MASTER.
swank keeps talking about “equity”.
i don’t know what he’s talking about.
civil law (in the common law sense of “civil law”) has substantive law.
and iirc “an equity court” means a civil court.
warren burger regarding the new interpretation of the 2d amendment, the one that started in the 70s,
one of the greatest pieces of fraud, i repeat the word “fraud”, on the american people by special interest groups that i have ever seen in my lifetime.
the 2d amendment is just as irrelevant as the 3d.
Okay…..but your interpretation and that argument allows constitutional amendments to be nullified by congressional action. If you’re into separation of powers or original intent, then it can’t be the original intent of the constitution that acts of congress other than the formal amendment procedure can completely void an amendment.
allows constitutional amendments to be nullified by congressional action
wtf are you talking about?
i’m seriously starting to think your native language is sasquatch.
an amendment can ONLY be nullified by another amendment. this happened with prohibition as you know…i hope.
Yes….and the argument that the 2nd amendment was or even could be mooted by Congressional action, i.e. the creation or maintenance of a standing army necessarily is against the constitution’s original intent….
the following covers heller. it’s an example of how all the justices and the counsels were incompetent.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect-gun-show
these retarded douches can’t even distinguish between arms and firearms and hand held guns.
what is the evidence that the arms in the 2d amendment referred to only to hand held guns?
i demand my 2d amendment right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and any wmd i choose…in order to be well prepared to use them in any future war.
and these are the finest legal minds in the land.
the law is a joke because lawyers are mental midgets.
madison’s statement is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46#Military_and_militia
i had thought the militia was intended to be the military, and that there was to be no standing military in peace time. i was mistaken. the “necessary to the security of a free State” really does refer to limiting the power of the federal government via state militias.
but i do conclude from this that:
1. “arms” includes ALL weapons of war.
2. the states and local governments are NOT prevented from enforcing gun control laws of their own.
well, (2) goes without saying because even Heller states that the right is not unlimited.
(1) is a stretch, because first, we have sources at the time who discussed what the right to bear arms meant, such as Blackstone: “[T]o vindicate [the three primary rights], when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled… lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Which makes sense, given that the function of a state militia is different from that of a standing army — resistance/defense is its function, meaning that a lot of heavier duty ‘offensive’ weapons, which also require multi-unit coordination and training, probably aren’t intended to be covered. it’d make sense to just include an average enlisted man’s armament — what one could keep and bear.
no. the militias were envisioned to function as an army of the US, but to be organized on a local level to limit the power of the peace-time US military.
blackstone is irrelevant. he wasn’t even an american.
and it’s 100% obvious from madison’s letter and the amendment’s peshat that self-defense is IRRELEVANT.
“keep and bear”. a canon cannot be born, but it can be kept.
how could guns alone assure the defense against federal tyranny?
(2) goes without saying because even Heller states that the right is not unlimited.
i meant…
2. the states and local governments are NOT prevented from enforcing ANY gun control laws of their own.
Then most of the constitution is irrelevant because most of the concepts it uses aren’t “even American.”
And the militia was only to have certain powers of the US army….defensive. Putting down insurrections, etc. It was simply not an offensive entity.
(2) can follow I guess, if you hate incorporated rights. If you’re willing to say the same about state laws regarding free speech, then it will seem less arbitrary.
a canon cannot be born, but it can be kept.
the clause would be conjunctive…
so then a law outlawing cannons for personal use would be fine under that interpretation.
should’ve been borne of course.
but according to stevens the phrase “keep and bear arms” does not mean keep in one’s personal possession.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889158318300054
who wins in one place and time may lose in another. one more disproof of the individualist ideology.
Whoever wins big changes….but the wise will always do all right. Every society needs the virtuous…in the arete sense.
The level of Afro’s denial is just insane. I don’t mean denial of HBD, I mean things like “women love Black men”.
Watch your sister having fun with another JJ lookalike.
LMAO! My wife is Moroccan…
PP blocks all my overly hurtful posts. As I can’t properly hurt your feelings on this platform, I will stop trying.
How could your virgin ass hurt JJ who is notoriously perfect?
Hurt people (try to) hurt people, and fail.
More sociopathy/autism [intersection] applied from chaina
I’m actually not Jimmy.
Yes, you are not Jimmy. Are you feeling any better now ?
Lyrion I fully agree with you. It’s obvious. Sexual selection for skin color, non-caps typing, the weird obsession with afro. It all makes sense.
Fenoopy/Jimmy, you can admit it now.
This.
Except I can actually prove I’m not Jimmy? How stupid will you feel then?
I won’t lie, it’s annoying. The guy is probably North African, but he isn’t me. Add me on discord and I’ll show you.
If I had to guess, I would say North African living in London for sure. All high-class North Africans brain drain to London, all low-classes migrate to France in hordes. The smarter low-class North Africans head to Quebec. Most low-class North Africans aren’t intelligent enough to realize that if they head to France they’ll be treated like Jim Crow Negroes [and probably deserve it].
Funny how Jimmy said exactly the same thing about France being such a horrible country to North Africans. That’s delusional, France is very tolerant, despite the freak amount of crime and terror that your people cause here.
“that if they head to France they’ll be treated like Jim Crow Negroes”
What kind of semitic lie is this ?
Not literally, I mean a general dislike and prejudice. See the long list of presidential comments about Mahgrebin. Wilders is similar in the Netherlands.