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 [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:29 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/54e46a09-6cf8-4d4b-acbf-ee2f8a731ac7n%40googlegroups.com.
