A well designed Stove, being necessary to the nutritional health of Families, the right of the people to bake and eat Bread, shall not be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
A well stocked bakery, being necessary to the nutritional health of the citizen, the right of the people to keep and bear stoves, shall not be infringed.
Interesting.
If you are on the "conditional" side of the argument (the argument that gun rights are conditional upon the need for a militia), then if a well-stocked bakery is not necessary to the nutritious health of the citizen, laws to ban stoves would not violate the constitution.
Or, in my case, if you can feed your family well without a stove, you can make bread baking and the eating of bread illegal without violating the constitution.
No need to ban bakeries. We just need to do a better job of enforcing the existing laws against the wrong kinds of bakers.
Bakers don't make you fat. The baked goods do. You got to ban the flour, sugar and butter.
We could just limit bread slices. No more 30 slice loaves.
And who are these people buying pumpernickel? When white and wheat are sufficient enough.
Excellent.
Isn't it interesting that when you remove guns - and the hard-line, knee-jerk positions elicited whenever we talk about guns - the arguments from both sides so quickly look like parodies of rational thought. I naturally think the right's arguments are more absurd, but you have definitely shown that the knife cuts both ways.
So by your interpretation, would the outright ban of any type of bakeries be unconstitutional. Say that a certain type of bakery was proven to be detrimental to the health of the citizenry, could it be banned? Or would the government only be allowed to reasonably regulate that bakery, without resorting to an outright ban? It seems that a legitimate function of government is to protect the citizenry, if a bakery was found to be physically unsafe for that citizenry, a ban would be appropriate, if reasonable regulation had proven to be ineffective.
So tired of these threads that end up nowhere, so here's a nice butt
We're banning bread, not buns. Unless they have cellulite.So tired of these threads that end up nowhere, so here's a nice butt
I don't know, and no. Also it isn't about "truth", there is not absolute truth regarding the statement. Is the statement outdated? Undoubtedly, but they have the option to change it at any time.
That butt goes way above and beyond nice. That is damn near perfect. Now I must fap.So tired of these threads that end up nowhere, so here's a nice butt
I'm not even sure it was true then, and it certainly isn't true now.
But they still put it in the constitution.
They may have thought it was a "necessary truth" then, in the sense that they feared it would prove true (the nation would fall to England or some other power without a militia) and didn't want to leave it to chance. So they proclaimed it.
Note that it wasn't unusual for them to stack what they probably saw as similar or related issues in the same amendment. We see several freedoms of expression lumped in the 1st amendment, for example. So it's not unreasonable to think they put a couple of security issues in the 2nd amendment.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that I know for sure that they meant the militia clause as a finding and not a condition. Moreover, as I have argued before, so what if they did? That's just one argument. And it isn't even the best originalist argument, imo, because if we are going to base our reading on what it originally meant, we'd need to know what the voters thought they were voting for, not what the authors had in mind. And we'll never know that.
And who gets to decide when the condition no longer exists? That is my largest issue. Natural thinks he gets to decide (well, he believes it is universally false, decided subjectively by him), but there are plenty of people who still believe a militia is necessary. So who gets to decide? The people? With an Amendment? Oh, that was easy.
I didn't decide. The people's representatives decided when they voted to create a standing army in violation of the constitution long ago. From that point on, the second objectively was no longer true.
So it really is pretty simple then. All we need to do is pass another amendment declaring the Second Amendment null and void. We certainly have an avenue for that.
My claim is we don't need to as we already did that by making the amendment factually untrue.
So you've come up with a new way to amend or void parts the constitution? Interesting.
Its like regulations on whalebone corsets. You don't need to remove the laws for them not to apply anymore. We removed the applicability of the 2nd. Its a cute vestige, much like the 3rd.
We agree, but that doesn't change the argument that we voided it long ago through our policy choices.
To be fair, it could be a conditional. I just don't happen to think that's what they intended.
It's one of those cases where if they they hadn't been paying by the word, they could have used a few more words to make it clear. But they didn't. Damn cheapskates.
If it was intended as a conditional, then it would make sense that a declaration by Congress to the effect that "a militia is no longer necessary for the security of the nation" would be sufficient to allow gun rights to be infringed at will.
Maybe someone should introduce such a resolution.
At least it would be a start. Although I think the Amendment is the proper route (being as the state's collectively made the "condition", they would be the one to undo it), this would alleviate much of my reserve. A local politician passing sweeping gun legislation is not the proper procedure.
So you think a simple majority should be able to decide what is and isn't relevant in the Constitution. I think I still like the old way.
Well . . . it wouldn't be a simple majority in the Senate. Almost nothing is these days.
And, yes, I would be OK with it being a majority - because the alternative is that a minority decides what's important. Are you in favor of that?
I have this same argument with some of our libertarians from time to time. They moan and groan about the dangers of a "tyranny of the masses" but totally overlook the even greater danger of a tyranny of the oligarchs or the corporations. The truth being that a tyranny of the masses is a much lesser danger - in part because the oligarchs and corporations have already won, and in part because we have the Bill of Rights and other amendments that protect us (in theory).
I'd be happier if we passed a few decent amendments to fix and clarify the constitution, but that's not likely to happen.
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
