This is a flaw in the whole "original intent" argument. In the original intent. only large landowners could vote, certainly not women or non-Europeans, and blacks were only give 60% in the accounting for representatives.
LC On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 10:17:09 AM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote: > I would say that the original 1787 Constitution that permitted the 3/5 > compromise was the most sloppily written. This was the so-called compromise > that implicitly allowed slavery. The second amendment basically scares the > willies out of the modern progressive, who seeks to impose sort of a > national oligarchy against an unwilling people at least the 75 million of > us idiots who voted for the orange guy. Hence the huge push for things like > CRT, and transgenders competing in women's sports and online media > censorship and the control of banks by people who are of a progressive > bent. I turn people of a progressive bent are really those sort of liberals > who seem to be highly tolerant of Soviet socialism. Now this is even so, > that they are funded by globalist China facing corporations. The issue sort > of breaks down to the old Union tune which had a lyric that went something > like that " which side are you on boy, which side are you on?" > > My point in that observation is that we still live in a nation-state age > we still behave tribally and if we don't other tribes implicitly and > explicitly will. Witness the CCP in XI China. So until something changes > in the world in which we all must live, something technological I suspect, > AI is the first thing that jumps to my wee brain, we must dance like the > puppets we are to the tune that is called by our collective nature's. > Governments that don't go nationalist at this point in time yes even in the > 21st century will see themselves kicked out of office at the very least > witness what's happening in Europe. We must have something that replaces > nationalism just as we must have something that replaces fossil fuels and > switch over while we run things concurrently. > ------------------------------ > On Friday, June 4, 2021 John Clark <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:29 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > * > It's not nearly as thin as the air that says it's a musket. It's the > obvious functional interpretation. * > > > I interpret that to mean you don't believe in the "original intent" > interpretation. > > > > *The use of "arms" to mean any weapon is clearly a derivative extension of > what a combatant originally wielded with his arm.* > > > Well, I admit a linguist would say the weapon meaning of the word "arms" > is derived from the word for the limbs human beings used to manipulate > things, and a linguist would also say the derivation of the word > "calculus" comes from the Greek word for small stone or pebble, but I don't > think having completed a study of pebbles will help you much on a calculus > exam. > > >> In 1787 the people that made cannons and warships were called arms > manufacturers and that hasn't changed. It may be absurd but that's the world > we live in because nuclear weapons are called "arms'', remember the SALT > talks from the 1970s, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks? They were > about the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons manufactured by the US > and USSR. > > > * > But they certainly didn't mean that in order to have well regulated > militia people had the right to keep and bear frigates. * > > > True, it's impossible for one man to carry a frigate, but it's certainly > possible for one man to carry and activate a nuclear warhead, so I don't > see your point. I'm also surprised to hear you bring up the "well regulated > militia" bit because for years courts have been pretending that line didn't > exist in the Constitution. The only well regulated militias are state > national guard units, and only a tiny percentage of the population are > members of the national guard, but there are more privately owned guns in > the US than there are people in the country. And even when national guard > members are called to duty they don't use their personal guns, they use > weapons provided by the state. > > I think the second amendment is the most sloppily written part of the > constitution, and that's really saying something considering what a very > imperfect document it is. At least the parts about slavery are clear, > they're not stupid, they're just evil. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > , > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1723kyimuWSppY8U5mhHUoSBsCv4w6n0n9TsfASLO3Bg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1723kyimuWSppY8U5mhHUoSBsCv4w6n0n9TsfASLO3Bg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54e46a09-6cf8-4d4b-acbf-ee2f8a731ac7n%40googlegroups.com.
