Quote from: winterset on March 16, 2021, 05:40:05 PM
The major defect of the Constitution is that no one ever thought we would have a court system that became so powerful. No court in history has the power the Federal Courts do.

Their interference and stupidity has all but destroyed what was intended.

Now of course the other parts of the problem is a congress that has abrogated so much of its initial power to the executive branch and the courts.


If I was to write it now this is how I would word it:

The US Congress shall make no laws; the Federal courts will make no judgements; The Executive Branch shall have no power; there will be no interference by the Federal government in any way with the right of the people to bear arms.

Orrrr?
Every American will be armed and ready to fight. Period.

Nah, just kidding, but I agree, who knew the Marxists would bastardize things so badly that the door would be opened for interpretation?

Fuck em!

Quote from: Abatis on February 04, 2021, 05:37:29 PMI think the debate is over.  Sure, there are still people on message boards throwing around "militia right" or "state's right" for the troll effect, but for all intents and purposes, the real legal debate has come down on the individual right. 

The Heller dissenters all agreed that the question is no longer, does the 2ndA protect a collective or individual right; they all agreed the 2ndA protects an individual right. 

But, as Stevens put it, "a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right".  Where we still stand to lose the right is in leftists going on a "scope hunt" . . .

What we (constitutionalist conservatives) need to do is keep the foundational principles as the focus of our arguments.  The right to arms is not given, granted, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment and to propose that we need to alter the words of the current Amendment to give the right to us more gooder, is a sure way of surrendering the right. 

One couldn't propose a more dangerous to liberty idea than trying to now define and delineate the right in what we hope is a short, easy to understand form.  Never underestimate the ability of leftists to twist and reframe and redefine . . . If we concede that the right flows from the 2nd Amendment, we sign the RKBA's death warrant.

Yes, the Federalists back in 1787-1790 which is why they argued vehemently against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.  They believed adding a bill of rights was dangerous and absurd because the full breadth of our rights could not be summarized in a few words and our rights were so numerous they could never be listed.  They knew that any words used would be misconstructed and used to violate our rights by men wanting to usurp.  They believed it absurd to declare that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to act against our rights.

Just so you know, this didn't fall on deaf eyes.
Our Founders were brilliant, in that not only did they study history, they suffered it first hand.
Every time I read the Constitution, I thank God for the Bill of Rights.
I just wish that would have ended the easy process of altering the document.