This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 02:03 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
I'll try to give an example of what I mean without using such a hot button topic.

The constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble. Somewhere down the line, politicians passed laws that require a permit and pay an application fee to peacefully assemble. Some judge interprets the new law to be legal because it doesn't absolutely prohibit the assembly. But I would ask, would the founding fathers agree? Would they believe a permit and a fee is needed for something that is already permitted without question? Their intent was very clear in the constitution itself.

Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Patriot10mm's post
08-04-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
08-04-2015, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 02:27 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

You left out the other part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The people" only has one meaning in the constitution. "The right of the people" is found in the first amendment and the fourth and the second, i.e. the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It's very clear who the people are and what they meant. "The people" means everyone, together and as individuals.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 02:27 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:14 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

You left out the other part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The people" only has one meaning in the constitution. "The right of the people" is found in the first amendment and the fourth and the second, i.e. the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It's very clear who the people are and what they meant.

Think you need to read it again. It's all one sentence. There are commas no periods, except at the very end.

It could be our founding fathers intended that police and military have weapons but individuals did not have the "right".

If the law was based on British common law, as many suggest, Britain had certainly interpreted the law that way.

Now, really I'm not going to get into a pissing match about this. All I'm saying the constitution words alone are vague enough to be interpreted many ways. Even the part about endorsing religion. But you brought up the second amendment and mused about permits. I'm only pointing out that our founding father's might have thought that is just fine and dandy, because it doesn't say Tom, Dick and Harry get guns, but a well formed militia. If they meant everyone, they might have just said that.

*shrug*


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:27 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:14 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  You left out the other part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "The people" only has one meaning in the constitution. "The right of the people" is found in the first amendment and the fourth and the second, i.e. the right of the people peaceably to assemble. It's very clear who the people are and what they meant.

Think you need to read it again. It's all one sentence. There are commas no periods, except at the very end.

It could be our founding fathers intended that police and military have weapons but individuals did not have the "right".

If the law was based on British common law, as many suggest, Britain had certainly interpreted the law that way.

Now, really I'm not going to get into a pissing match about this. All I'm saying the constitution words alone are vague enough to be interpreted many ways. Even the part about endorsing religion. But you brought up the second amendment and mused about permits. I'm only pointing out that our founding father's might have thought that is just fine and dandy, because it doesn't say Tom, Dick and Harry get guns, but a well formed militia. If they meant everyone, they might have just said that.

*shrug*

Yet in the other amendments "the right of the people" meant as individuals but in this one amendment they had an entirely different meaning? I somehow doubt that. And by reading the federalist papers, their intent becomes even more clear.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Patriot10mm's post
08-04-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 01:56 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  Same with gun laws. Would the founders require a permit for something that is already a permitted act under the constitution?

They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

Except it is clear from meeting commentary and correspondence that was not what the majority of them meant.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  They might have said, "No, we only mean a well-formed militia, not an individal outside a well-formed militia."

Except it is clear from meeting commentary and correspondence that was not what the majority of them meant.

Well, sure. Because back in the day security actually depended on militia, who were whatever random schmucks who showed up with whatever random weapons they happened to have.

Whether any "original" intent is even remotely relevant to today is a much better question.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
08-04-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:29 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:27 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Think you need to read it again. It's all one sentence. There are commas no periods, except at the very end.

It could be our founding fathers intended that police and military have weapons but individuals did not have the "right".

If the law was based on British common law, as many suggest, Britain had certainly interpreted the law that way.

Now, really I'm not going to get into a pissing match about this. All I'm saying the constitution words alone are vague enough to be interpreted many ways. Even the part about endorsing religion. But you brought up the second amendment and mused about permits. I'm only pointing out that our founding father's might have thought that is just fine and dandy, because it doesn't say Tom, Dick and Harry get guns, but a well formed militia. If they meant everyone, they might have just said that.

*shrug*

Yet in the other amendments "the right of the people" meant as individuals but in this one amendment they had an entirely different meaning? I somehow doubt that. And by reading the federalist papers, their intent becomes even more clear.

I've read the federalists papers too. Again shrug. If they meant everyone and all people they would have left the well formed militia out of it. And just said the people.

Again, just going by their words some 200 plus years later.

I'm quite confident our founding fathers would find much to be appalled by today. I'm sure there are many things they never intended to be "thing" a couple centuries later.

It's a damn shame people can't live longer. It would be so cool to have the unfiltered thoughts of someone who did shape our history. Smile


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 03:08 PM by Patriot10mm.)
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except it is clear from meeting commentary and correspondence that was not what the majority of them meant.

Well, sure. Because back in the day security actually depended on militia, who were whatever random schmucks who showed up with whatever random weapons they happened to have.

Whether any "original" intent is even remotely relevant to today is a much better question.

I'd say it's pretty relevant. As long as the American people are armed, even with only small arms like semi auto rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles, no foreign army would dare step foot on our soil. Maybe some lunatic terrorist lone wolf type combatant would try it, but a full scale foreign invasion is deterred by our "random schmucks" as you put it.

In the words of James Madison: To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

In other words, no invading army stands a chance against an armed populace. Today that half a million is 50-100 million.

Death is a debt we all must pay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 03:08 PM
RE: This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.
(08-04-2015 02:57 PM)Patriot10mm Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, sure. Because back in the day security actually depended on militia, who were whatever random schmucks who showed up with whatever random weapons they happened to have.

Whether any "original" intent is even remotely relevant to today is a much better question.

I'd say it's pretty relevant. As long as the American people are armed, even with only small arms like semi auto rifles, handguns, and hunting rifles, no foreign army would dare step foot on our soil. Maybe some lunatic terrorist lone wolf type combatant would try it, but a full scale foreign invasion is deterred by our "random schmucks" as you put it.

And that's an idiotic fantasy. What do small arms do against jet bombers and tanks? The realities of 220 years ago do not matter today.

Heck, you don't even need to ignore the fact that the United States hasn't fought a neighbouring land power since the 1840s, and then go on to ignore the difficulties of mounting a trans-oceanic military expedition against a larger state without intermediate logistical support (you know, the actual reasons they haven't been invaded).

What good did southern guerillas do against federal troops during Reconstruction?
(hint: nothing)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: