Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d3c0y39 Mass murders are domestic terrorism. 99 per cent of mass shootings, the weapon of choice being AR-15 ASSAULT weapons, have been committed by RIGHT-wing white males.
You are either a dumbass as concerns actual facts, or you are a liar.
The January 6th insurrection was domestic terrorism, and was planned, organized, and directed by REPUBLICAN Trump, and those who directly attacked the Capitol, and those outside and directing, were all RIGHT-wing extremists claiming to be "conservatives"
Those terrorizing the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio, are domestic terrorists, and they are being incited to that criminality by Trump and Vance and other REPUBLICANS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kahlesjf It's simply a way of calling attention to a different view, or specific facts.
It is stunning that a viewer would FEEL condescended to by a talking head who doesn't know the viewer exists.
It is a mannerism, and nothing more. But apparently those who FEEL it is condescending have only encountered it in the context of argument and felt inadequate against the other's view.
Is it "condescending" when opposing counsel in litigation, in court, follows up on the lawyer who omits facts with, "But, your honor, I call attention to X"? Of course not.
Condescension is in an overall attitude, not in a pause-for-thought drawing of attention to specifics. alternatives, or additional information.
If you're talking about Trump lawyers Bobb or Habba, it is baseless arrogance by individuals who are out of their league but believe bullshitting is legitimate substitute for sound argument.
All in all, if one is objecting to the FACTS being reported, so attacks the reporter, then that is both petty and dishonest: the problem isn't the facts; the problem is with the person who doesn't like the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 AGAIN: I have an education in law; you are law-illiterate.
AND AGAIN:
1. The DEBATES of the Congress -- both House AND Senate -- that WROTE the Second Amendment prove that the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment was to establish a NATIONAL DEFENSE relying on the MILITIA. That fact is underscored by the May 8, 1792 Militia Act enacted by CONGRESS:
"An act more effectually to provide for the NATIONAL DEFENSE by establishing an uniform MILITIA throughout the United States."
2. Through the several drafts of that which became the Second Amendment there was ONLY ONE "individual right" debated. It read as follows:
": but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated militia] in person."
O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y, MORON, that was VOTED DOWN BEFORE the Amendment was ratified.
3. FURTHER, the 6 "Federalist Society" Supreme Court FANATICS overturned "Roe," which was based on the right of privacy, by DENYING that there is a right of privacy BECAUSE the words "right of privacy" don't appear in the Constitution.
OTHER words that don't appear in the Constitution:
"Individual right to possess guns".
4. AND AGAIN: the United States consists of two levels or forms of gov't: Federal, and states. That means that every citizen has DUAL citizenship: citizenship in the United States; and citizenship in their state of residence.
And the term "states' rights" is nothing new as a term, because that is precisely as the 6 SC FANATICS did with "Roe": kicked the decision back to the states so each state can decide whether it citizens will LOSE that right or KEEP it as a STATE RIGHT.
You should embrace the "states' rights" formulation because it has always been tainted by white supremacists in their effort to avoid FEDERAL protections of citizens, under the SUPREMACY Clause, from STATE gov't oppression of its citizens by yelling "STATES' RIGHTS!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ak471911able This is in the Constitution -- ALL of which is in effect at the same time -- YOU HAVE NOT READ:
Per the Constitution, "We the people" are the gov't. You hatred of "We the people" is SELF-destructive.
THIS is in the Constitution:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia[/National Guard] to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
As is THIS:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the States [GOV'TS] respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
The ONLY "individual right" DEBATED by those who WROTE the Second Amendment was this:
"but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia]".
That was obviously VOTED DOWN before the proposed Amendment was submitted to the states for consideration and ratification.
The SUBJECT of the Amendment is WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. A Militia is not an individual, is a public organization, and is an arm OF gov't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1