Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing

FenderTL5 · Aug 15, 2019

redleghunter said:
I will ask the historical question...Why did we get a 2nd Amendment in the first place? Meaning which historical event prompted the founders to consider this well after the war?

Disbanding the Continental Army.
Washington had sent everyone home and he was opposed to a standing national army.

redleghunter · Aug 15, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
Disbanding the Continental Army.
Washington had sent everyone home and he was opposed to a standing national army.

Lexington and Concord. When the redcoats came to snatch our guns.

chevyontheriver · Aug 15, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
Disbanding the Continental Army.
Washington had sent everyone home and he was opposed to a standing national army.

Wish we didn't have or apparently need a standing army. Instead we are the strongest armed forces in the world putting our noses everywhere playing policeman to the world.

If the Chinese or the Russians or whoever knew we had a well armed citizenry would they dare invade us? Or the Germans or the Japanese? I think not. That was our security until the Military Industrial Complex took over. Eisenhower was right.

Alien Lotus · Aug 15, 2019

chevyontheriver said:
Wish we didn't have or apparently need a standing army. Instead we are the strongest armed forces in the world putting our noses everywhere playing policeman to the world.

Not all over the world. In those countries that are allies and where we are protecting our national interests.
Countries that we aren't in hate us until they need us. And when countries need us in times of disaster, we're there.

If the Chinese or the Russians or whoever knew we had a well armed citizenry would they dare invade us? Or the Germans or the Japanese? I think not. That was our security until the Military Industrial Complex took over. Eisenhower was right.

No, we're still an armed citizenry and will call to arms in the event any enemy foreign or domestic attempt to threaten our people, our country, or our way of life through invasion or treason.

Alien Lotus · Aug 15, 2019

Halbhh said:
That's an interesting interpretation.

In a situation of a volunteer army called up from the countryside -- "Minute Men" -- well, that militia would be, actually was in actual reality, any individual gun owners willing to respond to the call.

One at a time. As individuals. Yes? The militia was just individuals.

Who decides what is "well-regulated" then for militias -- gun owners? I suppose you'd agree it's according to a constitution, whatever that constitution says is the law making body?

My feeling is overall the 2nd amendment is saying a government in the U.S. cannot prevent its citizens from owning guns, but it can regulate that ownership, so long as said regulations does not infringe their right to keep and bear arms.

Just as a way to understand what other people think I have another question --

Spot on! "the 2nd amendment is saying a government in the U.S. cannot prevent its citizens from owning guns, but it can regulate that ownership, so long as said regulations does not infringe their right to keep and bear arms."

Be wary of any claiming to be citizens of this country who would rather see us unarmed when we're currently the most powerful nation on earth.

Alien Lotus · Aug 15, 2019

Halbhh said:
Who would be comfortable with teenagers down the street from your house having fully automatic large capacity rifles, aka "Machine guns" ?

In some neighborhoods they already do. Watch reruns of the old homicide detective show, "First 48". Numerous cases there where teens armed with AK47's commit homicide. And they didn't buy those weapons from a gun shop or show.
They bought them where every criminal gets their weapons. In the streets. Gun control laws only affect those who obey the laws.

com7fy8 · Aug 15, 2019

Der Alter said:
An unarmed people are a people that can be rounded up at will and herded into prison camps and crematories as 6-7 million people were in Europe in the 40s.

Well, to me it seems Germany had a large population of similar people; so he could swing the whole country, pretty much by swinging laborers. But in the United States, we have more people, plus people are more varied, with various groups and cultural regions. Plus, cities are pretty independent. So, it might not be so easy to herd 300,000,000-plus Americans into camps. You would need to have cooperation of enough police and soldiers to do this.

Even so, you never know what you don't know.

Halbhh says George Washington said:
"Providence" means God's intervention

God is in control. Depending on less can be a mess, no matter what we do.

Der Alte · Aug 15, 2019

com7fy8 said:
Well, to me it seems Germany had a large population of similar people; so he could swing the whole country, pretty much by swinging laborers. But in the United States, we have more people, plus people are more varied, with various groups and cultural regions. Plus, cities are pretty independent. So, it might not be so easy to herd 300,000,000-plus Americans into camps. You would need to have cooperation of enough police and soldiers to do this.
Even so, you never know what you don't know.
God is in control. Depending on less can be a mess, no matter what we do.

During WII our benevolent government placed 110.000 to 120,000 citizens of Japanese ancestry in prison camps. Simply because they were Japanese. Outlaw all privately owned guns, who is next?

Hazelelponi · Aug 15, 2019

They can pass laws to disarm the citizenry all they want..

I think taking the citizenrys guns away is the issue they will find more insurmountable.. it's our last defense against tyranny, and people will decide that's what disarmament means. Tyranny.

Therefore, a defense will be mounted, guns in hand. They will not go quietly is my best guess...

Arcangl86 · Aug 15, 2019

Der Alter said:
During WII our benevolent government placed 110.000 to 120,000 citizens of Japanese ancestry in prison camps. Simply because they were Japanese. Outlaw all privately owned guns, who is next?

Why didn't the Second Amendment stop that?

jgarden · Aug 16, 2019

Alien Lotus said:
Listen to the Story option available at link

WASHINGTON, DC –Democrat presidential candidates and senators this week renewed their threats that unless the U.S. Supreme Court issues liberal rulings on the Second Amendment and other issues, Democrats will fundamentally restructure the nation’s highest court, a shocking threat to judicial independence not seen since the 1930s.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) filed an amicus brief (“friend of the court” legal brief) at the Supreme Court on Monday, joined by follow leftwing partisan Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), demanding that the Supreme Court back out of a case over one of the most restrictive gun control laws in America.

These leading Democrats also warned that if the justices proceed to issue a pro-Second Amendment ruling, and if Democrats win the White House and the Senate in 2020, then they will fundamentally remake the High Court.

The liberal senators warn that “a growing majority of Americans believes this Court is motivated mainly by politics,” accusing the justices of issuing rulings through “bare partisan majorities.”
More:
Democrats Threaten to Pack Supreme Court over Second Amendment

That's what I call tyranny and optimism in writing.

1. "Moscow" Mitch McConnell prevented President Obama's Supreme Court nomination from being considered by the Senate - a constitutional right!
Its hypocritical for conservatives to now be invoking the same Constitution after they were so willing to ignore the legal process when it happened to involve a Democratic candidate!

2. America has 4% of the world's population but half the incidents involving mass shootings - I sincerely doubt that the Founding Fathers intended that the American public should be held hostage to the repeated carnage perpetrated by a handful of domestic terrorists whom are legally allowed to acquire firearms with the firepower of a small army, all in the name of the 2nd Amendment!

3. The majority of Americans want background checks and a ban on assault rifles which were specifically designed for one and only one purpose - if these mass shootings were being conducted by foreign terrorists, the Congress would have already passed the necessary legislation to protect the public in a heartbeat!

redleghunter · Aug 16, 2019

jgarden said:
1. "Moscow" Mitch McConnell prevented President Obama's Supreme Court nomination from being considered by the Senate - a constitutional right! Its hypocritical for conservatives be invoking the same Constitution that they were so willing to ignore the legal process when it involved a Democratic candidate!

2. America has 4% of the world's population but half the incidents involving mass shootings - I sincerely doubt that the Founding Fathers intended that the American public should be held hostage to the repeated carnage being perpetrated by a handful of domestic terrorists legally allowed to acquire the firepower of a small army!

3. The majority of Americans want background checks and a ban on assault rifles which have one and only one purpose - if these assaults were being conducted by foreign terrorists, the Congress would have already passed the necessary legislation to protect the public in a heartbeat!

This justifies the Senate Democrats sending a threatening letter to the SCOTUS?

jgarden · Aug 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
This justifies the Senate Democrats sending a threatening letter to the SCOTUS?

If the Democrats controlled the Senate and deliberately refused to even meet with the Supreme Court nomination of a Republican president as prescribed by the Constitution, conservatives would go ballistic!

By subverting the Supreme Court nomination process, Republicans have succeeded in eroding confidence in yet another of America's governmental institutions - its a little late in the day for conservatives to act all shocked concerning Democratic resentment after they broke the rules to stack the Court with their own nominates!

redleghunter · Aug 16, 2019

jgarden said:
If the Democrats controlled the Senate and deliberately refused to even meet with the Supreme Court nomination of a Republican president as prescribed by the Constitution, conservatives would go ballistic!

By subverting the Supreme Court nomination process, Republicans have succeeded in eroding confidence in yet another of America's governmental institutions - its a little late in the day for conservatives to act all shocked concerning Democratic resentment after they broke the rules to stack the Court with their own nominates!

So I’ll ask again. Based on what you wrote, were the Senate Democrats justified in sending a threatening amicus to the SCOTUS, thus questioning separation of powers?

jgarden · Aug 16, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
They can pass laws to disarm the citizenry all they want..

I think taking the citizenrys guns away is the issue they will find more insurmountable.. it's our last defense against tyranny, and people will decide that's what disarmament means. Tyranny.

Therefore, a defense will be mounted, guns in hand. They will not go quietly is my best guess...

2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The American Civil War laid to rest any illusions as to how effective a citizen militia could withstand the combined might of a well-trained military!

Since then technological innovations and training have only widened the gulf that exists between the military preparedness of "a well regulated Militia" equipped with rifles, and the firepower of a modern army, navy and air force!

This whole argument, concocted by the NRA to justify its existence, bears no relationship with reality - a government organization that receives over $700 billion in funding annually, is not about to succumb to amateur militias, no matter how "well-regulated" they may be!

jgarden · Aug 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
So I’ll ask again. Based on what you wrote, were the Senate Democrats justified in sending a threatening amicus to the SCOTUS, thus questioning separation of powers?

When ta Democratic president requests that certain Republican members from adifferent branches of government be subjected to a travel ban with respect to visiting Israel based solely on their political views, then American conservatives can start lecturing Democrats on the topics of civility and the separation of powers!

jgarden · Aug 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
So I’ll ask again. Based on what you wrote, were the Senate Democrats justified in sending a threatening amicus to the SCOTUS, thus questioning separation of powers?

Referring to the sanctity of the "separation of powers" with this President in the White House only reinforces as to just out of touch from reality the conservative position has become!

President Trump has treated Congress, especially its Democratic members, with utter contempt while viewing the Supreme Court as just another conservative extension of his Administration - separation of powers and the constitutional limits to Executive authority are concepts that are neither acknowledged nor understood by this White House!

With respect to the Supreme Court, now that President Trump and "Moscow" Mitch have succeeded in "poisoning the well" dispensing with all semblance of trust and civility, they shouldn't be surprised when the Democrats respond with their own version of political "hardball!"

redleghunter · Aug 16, 2019

jgarden said:
When ta Democratic president requests that certain Republican members from adifferent branches of government be subjected to a travel ban with respect to visiting Israel based solely on their political views, then American conservatives can start lecturing Democrats on the topics of civility and the separation of powers!

Wow, you won't answer the question directly and give me off topic travel bans that a sovereign nation has a right to do. Especially when the purpose of the visit is to drum up support for BDS. So in effect Bibi boycotted them.

redleghunter · Aug 16, 2019

jgarden said:
Referring to the sanctity of the "separation of powers" with this President in the White House only reinforces as to just out of touch from reality the conservative position has become!

President Trump has treated Congress, especially its Democratic members, with utter contempt while viewing the Supreme Court as just another conservative extension of his Administration - separation of powers and the constitutional limits to Executive authority are concepts that are neither acknowledged nor understood by this White House!

With respect to the Supreme Court, now that President Trump and "Moscow" Mitch have succeeded in "poisoning the well" dispensing with all semblance of trust and civility, they shouldn't be surprised when the Democrats respond with their own version of political "hardball!"

Ok you are not going to directly or even indirectly answer my question.

FenderTL5 · Aug 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
Lexington and Concord. When the redcoats came to snatch our guns.

The debate concerning the 2nd Amendment did not mention Lexington and Concord.
The closest comment in the debate that would suggest as such was this one,
"Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. "
- The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789 - Mr. Gerry -
Even there, it was not specified. However in retrospect, it could be inferred I suppose and not every word makes the register. It's more like "minutes" of a meeting.

There was quite a bit of debate about the militia, a LOT, about those with religious scruples being exempted from bearing arms in the militia.

An early iteration of the amendment gives a pretty clear picture of what was intended:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

At one point, the words 'in person' were added after the word 'arms' at the end, thus allowing religious objectors to serve in the militia by proxy. This was removed because, those who would object on religious grounds would also likely object of someone serving in their place as well.

Here are the discussions, with the various re-phrasing the took place -linkage-
There's enough here to provide fodder for all sides of the discussion.

Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

:sighing:

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Senior Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.

Similar threads