Thursday, August 11, 2016

Trump's Second Amendment Remedies

Freepers are clearly anxious about Trump. Because when he says something they say all the time, they've stopped cheering and started blaming the media for repeating it.

Now, I don't buy the 'stochastic terrorism' theory that Trump's latest off the cuff scandal is intentional in any way. Though I'm not sure he meant it as a joke either. Doesn't matter, joke or not, a President can't be so careless with his words as to say stuff like 'Maybe supporters of the Second Amendment could figure out a way' to stop Hillary-appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices.

But Freepers say that crap all the time! So you once again have a post divided between Freepers saying 'right-on, Trump!' right next to 'Trump didn't mean that at all, dumb media!'
And both are quite willing to ignore the other, too intent on their own important narrative.

jmacusa I pretty on board:
Why do you think we have a Second Amendment?
HombreSecreto finds the idea jmacusa loves to be ridiculous:
I listened to the speech live.

This isn’t just stretching. This is insane by the MSM.
HombreSecreto then gets distracted with which fantasy movie Trump is the hero of:
The U.S. media are the enemy, the enemedia

The U.S. media create a false reality as in the movie the Matrix

It took “the One” to see the Matrix and manipulate it.

You can also use the “Trump as the Mockingjay” metaphor. Trump won the Hunger Games, playing by their rules.

Now he’s fighting to free the Districts (States) from the oppression of the Capitol (DC).
I don't know which is dumber. That Mr. Douglas hasn't heard of dog whistle politics before, or that he thinks Trump totally pulled one over here:
HAHAHAHA! This is hilarious. He says it without saying it and there is not a thing they can do about it. They can’t even fault a single word he said, try though they might.
Jim Robinson lays down the party line - Trump didn't mean what he said, but he was still talking about killing bad government guys:
B/S. Trump was alluding to the intent of the second amendment. She can try to annul the second amendment all she wants, but she’s NOT going to take our guns, ie, “You want my gun, come and TAKE it!”
And if not, MeganC will still decide it's so:
If Hillary or Trump gets assassinated it’ll be by a Democrat.
ColdOne is sure the corrupt press plotted this out days in advance:
It was really, really fast response. It was for sure the fastest one I have seen. I bet they have had discusion groups and a binders full of responses to go after Trump. Just like in football, the coach has all the plays for certain downs etc.
hillarys cankles - even the Secret Service is against Trump!
US Secret Service says it is ‘aware of the comments’ made by Donald Trump regarding the 2nd Amendment - @mikememoli

You gotta be F’ing kidding me.

It’s Trump against EVERYONE! Im so sick of this shit.

The SS is aware of his comments.......... what a F’ing joke.
M Kehoe - WINNING!
Trump is controlling the news cycle.


  1. Oddly enough, I (technically) agree with Trump and (some) Freepers on this. The intent of the 2nd is to facilitate the removal by deadly force of a government deemed by some to be "oppressive".

    That is why it is a ridiculous anachronism just like slavery, witch burning and powdered wigs. You can't (logically) support the 2nd and then start clutching pearls about someone suggesting it be used as intended.

    1. The Whiskey Rebellion disproved the notion that the 2nd could effectively be used to oppose the establishment. The Civil War emphatically punctuated it.

      What Trump said was a dumb joke. The man is completely insincere.

    2. What is the source for this interpretation? Hamilton in the Federalist Papers was pretty clear that the militia was intended to suppress anti-government rebellions, not carry them out.

    3. I guess you just take the "free state" language from the Amendment, put it together with the Declaration of Independence's moral justification of political violence, and shake really hard

      The best interpretation of the Second Amendment, IMHO, is actually as a limitation on the feds disarming individual State armed forces

      Interestingly, the Second Amendment _has_ arguably been violated on this interpretation, such as when Eisenhower called the Arkansas national guard into federal service during the Little Rock desegregation fight

    4. I absolutely agree. The 2nd has been "not fit for purpose" for well over a century. That's why it's an anachronism.

      Like many other aspects of the Constitution it should be repealed/replaced with more appropriate language that isn't so easily warped by Judicial fiat.

      Finding a right to indiscriminate gun ownership in an amendment about militias is as ludicrous as finding a right to abortion[1] in an amendment about due process.

    5. How is the novel state militia reading consistent with Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3?

    6. Distinction between non-professional "militia" and standing army largely rendered obsolete by advancing military and transportation technologies

      The overall focus of sec. 10, par 3 is on centralizing federal control of foreign policy; the "militia" can serve only for defensive purposes, consistent with the allowance for States to make war without federal authorization if "actually invaded"

      Not saying that there's no tension there, but it's the most plausible way to make sense of the Second Amendment at all

    7. Yeah, you do have to put up with a bit of inconsistency when your position hinges on ignoring English grammar.

    8. Howso?

      Is the idea that the prefatory "militia" clause has no effect on the meaning of the "right" clause because it's a subordinate clause

      Giving the "militia" clause no meaning defies basic rules of statutory construction, under which constructions which render words superfluous are disfavored

  2. The bottom line for me is that the justices have superceded the Constitution so that it is a blank canvas to mean and enforce whatever modern art they want. Neither ancient language, democracy, stare decisis, free speech or even guns can save us from this inexorable tyranny.

    1. Would you care to cite one specific example where the Supreme Court has "superceded" the Constitution? I would value also your explanation how said decision is not based on legal precedent. Thanks in advance!

    2. That's easy: Gay Marriage. There is no possibility that the people enacting the 5th (or 14th) intended to make that legal. They didn't even intend to decriminalize being (actively) Gay to begin with.

      That right was invented by Judicial fiat, thus usurping the powers of the legislature and therefore the 10th Amendment.

      (I'm not opposed to Gay marriage: I just think Congress should have enacted it, not SCOTUS)

    3. It doesn't matter whether that specific issue falls within the expected scope of the amendments in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is not a word in the Obergefell decision that is inconsistent with the U.S. constitution.

    4. If you disregard expected scope and original intent then the 2nd amendment authorizes personal possession of suicide bomb belts, sarin gas and weaponized ebola virus.

    5. The intent is not the same thing as expected scope. They laid down rules to guide the courts in the future, not just in the instant. The actual scope of constitutional rules has to be adjusted as society and technology change. The 1st Amendment applies to telegraphs, not just the spoken word and letters or signs. The founders don't have to have anticipated every single situation for the constitution to come into play.

    6. Agreed, new situations arise and eventually new wording is needed or matters should be left to conventional legislation.

      The alternative is ever more tortuous reinterpretation and re-purposing of outdated language leading to encroachment on the prerogatives of the legislature and ultimately democracy itself.

      Gay marriage (for or against) is not within the expected scope or original intent of the Constitution as democratically enacted and expanding the scope of the Constitution by Judicial fiat instead of the agreed amendment process is fundamentally undemocratic.

    7. You do realize there's a third article in the U.S. constitution, don't you?

    8. Given that the 14th amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, I fail to see how "judicial fiat" enforcing equal protection of the law - by mandating that rights be extended to one group of people previously excluded without in any way diminishing the rights of anyone else - is "unconstitutional."

    9. As a constitutional attorney, I enjoy nothing better than watching conservative idiots pontificate about the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. It's like watching kindergartners argue about nuances of molecular biology.

    10. Your contention is that the Constitution has become so opaque as to be incomprehensible to the people it governs, so such questions should be left to professionals such as yourself. More an oligarchy than a democracy wouldn't you say?

      Since you brought it up, I have degrees in both Law and (ironically) Molecular Biology.

  3. Russian expansion is the best. Because true Americans support the USSR 2.0.


    Always please remember; it has been every Tsars dream since Peter The Great to reclaim Constantinople, the Bosphorus, and the Dardenelles.

    It's my dream too.

  4. The SCOTUS didn't enact "Gay Marriage". They ruled that whatever right to civil marriage a state chooses to extend to its citizens equally, whatever their sexual orientation.

    1. "Activist judges" only "legislate from the bench" by "judicial fiat" when they issue a ruling someone doesn't like, usually when that ruling gives equality to someone the speaker looks down upon.

    2. Not always. Personally I am in favor of women's right to choose but I'm opposed to Roe v. Wade. The courts have no business "legislating" on this matter. Congress should enact appropriate legislation and propose a constitutional amendment clearly defining what a "person" is (i.e. not sperm, eggs, blastocysts, embryos etc).

    3. They have all the business in the world resolving disputes of law. They work with what's on the books. If you want them to be guided by different rules, you have to change the rules. The legislature and the judiciary have separate jobs. The legislature is not in charge of resolving disputes of existing law.

    4. No, SCOTUS doesn't just "work with what's on the books" it *decides* what is on the books. The Constitution says whatever SCOTUS rules that it says so once you allow in unfettered analogy and extrapolation you have a Constitution that is both self amending and self authorizing.

    5. Yes, they interpret what's on the books to resolve disputes. Are you suggesting that the judiciary should stop resolving questions of law? This is sort of like saying that criminal courts should wait for the legislature to decide guilt or innocence. You're saying that the branch of government specifically empowered to answer these questions should wait for a separate branch to do it for them.

    6. No, I'm suggesting that the constitutional court should rule that many questions are not addressed by the constitution so it is ultra vires to express an opinion beyond possibly advising Congress that they should enact new law if they want the topic moved into federal jurisdiction.

    7. In what way is 5th and 14th amendment jurisprudence not under federal jurisdiction? The courts regularly decline to rule on questions they deem political instead of legal, so it's not like they aren't already declining jurisdiction where it's not appropriate.

    8. They are under federal jurisdiction. The point is that the original intent has been disregarded without a democratic mandate for a new intent.

      Apply the same logic to the 2A: Stategic ARMS Limitation Treaties are unconstitutional and every hayseed in the ozarks can have his own tactical nuke because the contemporary meaning of "arms" has evolved.

      I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you're prepared to give Congress a free pass on political cowardice so long as you can achieve the ends you approve of by other means. I am not.

    9. I think the fundamental difference is that I don't think the courts have to wait for constant guidance from the legislature instead of performing their duties while the legislature performs its duties. Each of the three branches is independent -- none of them have to wait for prior permission from another branch before they perform their constitutionally-specified jobs.

  5. Attention Lurking Freepers, Please cite an interview or speech where Hillary Clinton called for repeal of the second amendment.

    1. On another note; how many ANGELS can
      dance on the head of a pin?

      Think about it.