More red state Idiocy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

George Washington NEVER said or wrote any of the following quotes cited by gun nuts, Republicans and even judges:

1. When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern.”

The quote seems to originate from an online publication: The American Wisdom Series presents Pamphlet #230, "President George Washington's Thoughts on Firearms." The author provides no citation for the quotations used.

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.


2. “When a nation mistrusts its citizens with guns it is it sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government has evil plans.”

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

3. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence.”

This quotation does not show up in any of Washington's writings, nor does any closely related quote.

4. “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

This quote is partially accurate as the beginning section is taken from Washington's First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union. However, the quote is then manipulated into a differing context and the remaining text is inaccurate. Here is the actual text from Washington's speech:


A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."



Source:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/...us-quotations/

Not my research on the topic but a great example of how those who cite and support originalism . Quote things that were never said and make their own interpretations to someone written words

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s stupid to reference british judges. all he had to do is say “the idea that protection against illegal search and seizure was designed to allow for infanticide, is stupid, and obviously not what’s in the constitution.”.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Apparently the same place as you.
You need look no further than Alito’s opinion overturning Roe where he cited opinions of four British judges as the basis for his argument.

“ of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is never- theless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor Gen- eral repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruc- tion of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law au- thorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post- quickening abortion was a crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

although he was apparently responding to a comment from the solicitor general. doesn’t matter if abortion is a crime or not, that’s not what the supreme court decided. overturning roe did not make abortion illegal. it returned the question to the states where it belongs. The supreme court didn’t say that states cannot outlaw abortion. your side doesn’t seem to grasp that. the supreme court decided, correctly, that it’s not a federal issue. The constitution specifies the things that are federal issues, and says everything else goes to the states.

At the state level, have the argument about whether or not it should be legal.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

FFS, if you’re going to bash “originalism”, maybe you should have some small clue what it is. Originalists rely on the original text of the constitution. has any influential originalist, ever, made a constitutional argument because they saw on the internet that george washington said something? that’s all that conservatives ever rely on?

jesus god almighty man. try a little harder. where do you get this garbage?

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim you complete missed the point of the article. These quotes that never existed were used by Originalist to defend their views on Gun ownership and the 2A ..

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

who used those fake quotes?

No i didn’t miss the point of your post, which was to attack the gop for using bogus facts to win a political argument. my point, is that you don’t care when democrats say the police killed michael brown when he said hands up don’t shoot which he never said, you don’t care when your side says pro lifers motive is to
enslave women, when they said rittenhouse carried the rifle illegally across state lines. etc…. you have no principles. zip.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And to use an originalist logic against them the 2nd amendment applies to Muskets seeing when it was written.. but of course they play linguists gymnastics to twist out of their own claim it’s about the original Text

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A does not mention or specify muskets. An originalist would not interpret that the Constitution is stuck on muskets. That would not be originalist logic.

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

[Got Stripers]

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This subject has been debated a number of times, pulling a well armed militia together back then was easy, every home likely had the same arms in order to join a potential fight with the British, who had the same arms.

Since armament used by foreign powers has changed, should all citizens be allowed access to military grade weapons to join the militia, which likely will never be required, unless you have been binge watching Red Dawn while reloading shells. Might happen in Ukraine, but any conflict coming our way is coming from the air, or maybe we sane people need to arm ourselves better to protect ourselves from the increasing threats from the far right. Case in point the rise in power grid attacks or the daily mass shooting happening anywhere.

i’m not making a conservative argument about gun rights. i’m making an argument about what an originalists is, and what an originalist isn’t.

I’d like to see more restrictions, but we probably need to amend the constitution first. that’s our system. If democrats can get to ignore parts of the constitution they don’t like when they’re in power, then republicans can do the same thing when they’re in power. That’s too much power. Safer if everybody is subject to the same
exact limitations.

here’s a question, how come when you mention gun violence you always limit your opinion to mass shootings, when those account for a small percentage of gun deaths? why is all the talk about assault rifles, when those are involved in a tiny fraction of gun deaths? why don’t we prioritize the issue that claims so many more lives? handgun violence in the cities, and now fentanyl deaths, are a much much bigger problem. Yet The left never, ever mentions them.

i’m pretty sure i know what the answer is. but i’m curious to know what you’d claim the answer to be.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They interpret on the words in the Constitution as they were defined when the Constitution was written.

Are you saying that they should interpret on words that are not in the Constitution? That would be Progressive, not original.

Since Originalism was invented in the 1980s, a few hundred years after the Constitution, I’ll call it a conservative fad.

Here’s how it’s used:

What happens in “originalist” judicial decisions has nothing to do with history. Instead, “originalism” is used as a way to shut down opposing arguments. To sum it up, that method has six steps:

1. Find some old legal cases or other sources that can be quoted, even if sharply edited first, to favor a conservative policy outcome of a constitutional dispute.

2. Proclaim this policy outcome as the “original public meaning” of the constitutional provision at issue.

3. Exclude as much contrary evidence (including existing judicial precedent) as possible.

4. Announce that none of the remaining evidence disproves your side’s preferred policy outcome.

5. Enshrine your preferred policy outcome in constitutional doctrine.

6. (optional) If courtesy calls for it, apologize for the harshness of the result, but note that you bear no responsibility. Our Founders decided it long, long ago, and you are simply their humble scribe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Then their not very original are they
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

originalists stuck to the actual original language wayne. show us where in the 2a, it says anything about muskets, and then you have a point. Until you can do that, you have no point and you’re embarrassing yourself.

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Well armed militia Jim what weapons were around ?.. we’re the a muskets or B Ar 15s.

Like I said linguistic, gymnastics.. the constitution doesn’t say a lot things originalist claim it does. But they claim it any how

what’s the language? originalists, by definition, stick to what they wrote

once you start making assumptions about “what they really meant”, which is exactly what you’re doing, then it’s no longer originalism.