Ever notice Constitutional Originalism and Biblical Inerrancy work the same way. They are used to shut down discussion and claim theirs is the only correct interpretation. Pick a few decontextualized quotes, whether from a founding father or a Bible verse, ignore any and all contradictions or historical context, and voila! your desired meaning becomes the only acceptable interpretation.
30 Likes
Because they know most people are lazy and dumb and prefer to cede original thought to a few self-proclaimed experts, and no one wants to listen to the crank in the corner.
4 Likes
And thats why I didn’t get vaxxed!
3 Likes
the so-called judges will never wake up until they or theirs are killed by a gun.they think since they are well protected; it will never happen to them.
6 Likes
To make up for cowardice and very small dicks.
4 Likes
But look how Barf complained about the protesters outside his house. I wonder if Alito, Thomas, and Roberts would feel if tactical wearing, AR-15 totting, bearded guys were patrolling in front of their houses?
ETA: Or if someone in their neighborhoods keeps setting off fireworks?
This year may be the first years in many decades that someone around me hasn’t been shooting off fireworks for every 'effing holiday. Don’t know if they finally got told off, got cited, or moved.
It used to just be the 4th, and because I live near our biggest park where they have a 4th of July fireworks show there was nothing I could do about that, but a neighbor constantly shooting off fireworks here where it’s illegal was getting too, too much.
8 Likes
They don’t give a tinker’s damn about original intent and waste no time mulling over it. They start from a result they desire due to prejudicial ideology, get creative to come up with quasi-legalistic reasoning to support that result, and then optionally and only as an afterthought tack on a few citations of constitutional text and case law for dressing.
18 Likes
And just like their “biblical foundation” they blithely omit any mention of any sentence, word or paragraph that qualifies the written word of either the Bible or the Constitution. Such as “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”
11 Likes
As many deaths as it take in a civil war. Because short of that we can have a school shooting a day, and nothing is going to be done. We will sooner have schools looking like prisons and parents deciding to not send their kids to school at all, than doing the right thing. It’s not a matter of “Gun Control” much less of “Gun Safety”, with 400 million guns in the streets the only solution is disarmament and that is no way Americans are going to comply with that voluntarily.
7 Likes
Notice that the guns are for defense of the state not for self-defense.
16 Likes
That and “men” like Charleton Heston and Mad Wayne LaPierre who are using guns to substitute for their missing manhood (not to mention that Heston was entering Alzheimers at that point, and in addition to having been a lifelong blowhard, was lacking whatever critical thinking skills he might have ever had).
8 Likes
And god smote him, didn’t she?
8 Likes
everyone gets smote.
eta: like 98% at some point in their life.
5 Likes
Wow! That caused me to bring up the dictionary. Well done!
3 Likes
Swallowtail laying eggs in the yard.
Today is a good day. laters.
8 Likes
Meh.
More like Reformation II:
Arm the disaffected, rewrite the foundational documents, and kill all those not faithful to the King.
It’s the children of those exact same people, and they are driven, forgiven, and justified by the exact same religion.
2 Likes
This is the best comment ever. Thank you.
2 Likes
Apropos of nothing, what is this fascination that some Lefties have with the phalluses of other men? Is it some kind of Freudian envy thing?
And most definiitely NOT for armed insurrection against said state, which is how the reactionaries have been reading it.
9 Likes
I don’t think that is necessarily true. The US did not have a standing army when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Militia Act of 1792, as amended, required that every member of the militia shall “provide himself with [specified munitions] and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service.” The existence of a militia depended on its members having not only the right, but also the obligation, to keep and bear arms.
Scalia was faced with the inconvenient fact that the nature of the US military had changed significantly over the ensuing 200 years. When the well regulated militia is no longer dependent on the individual’s right to keep and bear arms there is no need for an individual to have a 2nd Amendment right. That was not Scalia’s desired result, so he had to negate the well regulated militia clause. Scalia then had to abandon the clear meaning of the text and create some unstated limitations on the right such as weapons that can be carried, weapons that are in common use, and as @mondfledermaus pointed out, weapons that can be used for self-defense. The current Court has apparently decided to avoid the hassle of dealing with reality by simply declaring the 2nd Amendment to be sacrosanct and inviolable.
End of rant.
9 Likes