He said: It always has been up for reinterpretation. The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change.
Said General Gage...
Sometimes I wonder if it is viewed by others as a waste of time knowing so much of the history of progressivism, but I think this is a great example of how useful this knowledge is and how the progressives own history can be weaponized against them.
Yes. Abortion too.
If he didn’t write this with a quill pen, I won’t read it.
The Second Amendment is absolute.
When it was written the common American Man owned the same Weapons of War as his Enemy.
The Second Amendment isn’t about Duck Hunting unless the Ducks learn how to arm themselves.
Put up or shut up prog faggots.
And they would reinterpret your status as a carbon-based viable lifeform if they can get away with it.
Obviously, Bill Foster has never seen what a triple load of canister will do...
I just wonder; what if the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” could possibly mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Obviously, Representative Bill Foster either never heard of (or simply doesn’t give a damn about) the clause in Article 1, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to “grant letters of marque and reprisal.”
What are those? Basically, the right (after Congressional authorization) to act like a pirate against the enemies of the United States. Such Letters were granted by the Continental Congress, and later (under this very clause) during the War of 1812 (and at other times, but principally then). This meant that private citizens could attack British commercial AND MILITARY ships.
Well, how does one attack the navy of the most powerful empire on Earth? The answer is simple - and explains a lot about the 2nd Amendment and the “arms” that are protected therein: You attack them with your own large ships, armed to the teeth with YOUR OWN PERSONALLY-OWNED CANNON. Yeah, “arms” included the 18th and 19th Century equivalent of today’s naval artillery. “Arms” includes ALL armaments, with the possible exception of WMDs (because there really was no such thing back then, except possibly for a blanket loaded with live smallpox). In today’s terms, it means not just de-tuned versions of the armed forces’ main rifle, but identical versions, plus grenades, suppressors, rocket launchers, crew-served .50 cal. machine guns, etc. Oh, and YES, also artillery and tanks. Why? Because Congress could grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (against Somali pirates, for example - there were some well-done ads for that “cruise” on the internet a while back), and we’d have to have modern weapons and ammunition in order to be able to use them effectively. That is what a militia is supposed to be able to do.
As for the Constitution being difficult to amend...hey, Representative Bill Foster, it was always SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY. We need a consistent law, one that doesn’t change with a change in the direction of the wind. EVERY SINGLE STATE which ratified the Constitution has accepted the entire Constitution, including the rather burdensome amendment process.
Suck it up, buttercup!
Using that logic, the 1st Amendment needs adjustment as the internet and instant communication tools and not been invented in 1776.
>>Bill Foster believes it was always open to reinterpretation and change.
>>The original progressives did not believe it was always open to reinterpretation and whined that it was impossible to change.
>>Both cannot be correct.
The author’s conclusion is badly flawed. The early Progs believed that it was open to reinterpretation, but the process to do it was too hard. They were no different that today, except for the party designator after their name. This was “change we can believe in” (Obama) but held back by “people who don’t know how to make democracy work” (Hogg).
There is no contradiction. They think that THEY (and only they) should be able to amend the Constitution on a whim, like Facebook trends. But, they also think that WE should never be able to change anything that they support.
The technology involving our 1st. Amendment right has vastly changed equally or in many cases more so. Abortion is not in the Constitution but life and liberty are inherent god given rights. Going after the Second Amendment is for one purpose and that is to silence opponents of liberalism and to destroy all other amendments in their way.
This guy Foster is the reason we have the 2nd Ammendment in writing.
“a practically unamendable constitution”
27 amendments over 230 years: that’s more than one per decade. Not exactly “unamendable”. I think he means to say that he has merchandise that America doesn’t want to buy.
No it hasn't.
The Constitution, yes, the Bill of Rights, never.
But there has never been a shortage of historically ignorant fools who think they know better.
Why is it that we in the 21st Century believe that our forefathers in creating the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not intelligent enough to discern that technology improves as time advances? Rifled muzzle loaders were the most advanced of the 18th Century, while armies continued using muskets well into the 19th Century.
The fact remains that our forefathers wanted the American citizen armed and self reliant for their own personal protection.
I love these progressives, if they feel a gun should not be in the hands of a civilian, then they should not buy one or hire a body guard. let them walk the streets of Chicago with a Tower pistol.
What do you expect from a liberal fascist*?
The reduction or defacto repeal of the 2nd Amendment will assure their rise to a totalitarian state. We have had a preview of the planned pattern of their weaponization against the People of the IRS, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, and others.
You bet Bill Foster wants to see a “reductio ad absurdum**” of the second amendment. It means the electorate would be one step closer to being helpless in the face of tyranny by government. Obama exemplified tyranny via executive fiat.Thank goodness these liberal fascist racketeering criminal syndicates are now being dismantled by PDJT. The battle is now joined.
* The Quintessential Liberal Fascist
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
**
Reductio ad absurdum: https://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
Based on the objections of Founders like Patrick Henry, George Mason & others of the Anti-Federalist movement, the 2nd Amendment was a compromise for passage of the Constitution. Whereby it affirms Natural Law that Sovereign Citizen's right to bear arms & form into a militia to resist and defend against a tyrannical government with weapons of war.