Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb

[BucEyedPea]

Like I said, more police state is coming. The scared sheeple will obey too.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks....

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

Another reason why Progressives are closet totalitarians.


http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomb...ave-to-change/

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

In the vernacular of the time, militia meant the "people."

No it didn't. They wouldn't even make sense textually.

"A well regulated [people], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Yes it did.

No it didn't you ignorant piece of shit. You can believe it and say it all you want... but it won't make you correct, only more delusional.

[BucEyedPea]

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No it didn't you ignorant piece of shit. You can believe it and say it all you want... but it won't make you correct, only more delusional.

Yes, it did. First of all, all of the Bill of Rights for most of American history were federal limitations. Not limitations on the state. So, when the 2nd Amend says that 'people have the right to keep and bear Arms' it's not saying, in its original meaning, that the state can't prohibit guns. A state was certainly able to do so. For most of American history, the meaning was intrinsically tied into federal limitations of state militias. In 1939, for example, in United States v. Miller, federal gun convictions against persons was okay because the guns targeted weren't for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.

Now perhaps you will know why Heller and McDonald were so notable.

Only after those two cases was it constitutionally proscribed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to personal rights of bearing arms totally unrelated to militias, and that states couldn't offend those rights.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Yes, it did. First of all, all of the Bill of Rights for most of American history were federal limitations. Not limitations on the state. So, when the 2nd Amend says that 'people have the right to keep and bear Arms' it's not saying, in its original meaning, that the state can't prohibit guns. A state was certainly able to do so. For most of American history, the meaning was intrinsically tied into federal limitations of state militias. In 1939, for example, in United States v. Miller, federal gun convictions against persons was okay because the guns targeted weren't for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.

Now perhaps you will know why Heller and McDonald were so notable.

Only after those two cases was it constitutionally proscribed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to personal rights of bearing arms totally unrelated to militias, and that states couldn't offend those rights.

Revisionist ignorant bullshit. You sound like a ****ing high school student who has little to no understanding of context or history. Heller is notable because it had to define what was UNDERSTOOD in the past. Only after the 2nd Amendment came under assault was it necessary.

It's sad how intelligent you THINK you are compared to reality. Now, admittedly you aren't Direckshun stupid, but you really need to think a bit more before you spot off on subjects you clearly know little about.

[BucEyedPea]

Lit is right that the 2nd Amendment applied to the Federal govt originally, and that it was never incorporated into the BoRs. It has been incorporated since Heller and another case in the Robert's Court.

However state's also allowed guns as a right back then too. The idea of a Federal BoR's came from the states. States can pass some gun laws but not a ban...because there is another delegated power given to Congress which is that they can call up the "militia" aka the people who hold arms. That means the people are to remain armed.

Self defense is a natural right. It is fundamental. So it cannot be taken away by any govt.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by La literatura

These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

wuuut?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by La literatura

These statements are clear indications that the Founders advocated that free men join a militia when they felt it was necessary. The second amendment clearly evinces a spirit of people forming a state militia to keep order.

None of that means the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment's right to a gun was divorced from its militia purpose.

Actually, the 2nd, 3rd, and last quotes make no mention of militia at all, and specifically address an individuals right to bear arms.

[BucEyedPea]

It is an individual right but it's primarily a restriction on the Federal govt infringing the right. That was the new govt they feared.

[BigChiefTablet]

What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Revisionist ignorant bullshit. You sound like a ****ing high school student who has little to no understanding of context or history. Heller is notable because it had to define what was UNDERSTOOD in the past. Only after the 2nd Amendment came under assault was it necessary.

It's sad how intelligent you THINK you are compared to reality. Now, admittedly you aren't Direckshun stupid, but you really need to think a bit more before you spot off on subjects you clearly know little about.

Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Self defense is a natural right. It is fundamental. So it cannot be taken away by any govt.

And that's a fine principle, but it's not what the 2nd Amendment really says or what it was interpreted as saying for most of American history.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Dayze

wuuut?

I was surprised to learn about it, too. It's kind of like when you learn that Genesis doesn't actually say the snake is Satan. I'm like, "wuuut? But that's how I've been taught it."

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

It's sad that you honestly think this is accurate. It's so stunningly ignorant that I'm not even sure where to begin. It's literally like talking to a delusional psychopath... I am at a loss as to how to find anything close to common ground to anchor the debate on.