Gun control

So you're saying if we had more guns here then yhe government would be more likely to give is planning permission for obnoxious patios?

It follows from that passage that civilians are entitled to the same weapons as the military? Ah yes, I forgot, "originalism": when the text reads exactly what we want it to read, it's textualism, otherwise, it's "implicationism".

Yes. Originalism is just about "what did they mean when they wrote and passed it", it's nothing particularly strange, it's how you would try to understand any piece of ancient literature. You read a letter by a greek merchant to his lover, you do originalism every time something isn't obvious to you. You check historically at that time what a certain expression meant and so on.

The passage (and many others about it) makes it clear that the drafters simply wanted "the people" able to counterveil a federal army gone rogue. Federalist papers clarify that as well.

And the way for that to be a possibility was to allow ownership of weapons by private individuals and allow them to organize in militias, well regulated (which means organized, trained, capable at military acts not regulated in the sense we use it currently) enough to be able to fight and win against a standing federal army that went rogue, or any other invading army.

That directly , transparently implies, among many other things, access to exactly all weapons (and facilities) a standing federal army could have access to.

Do you realise how disingenuous this all sounds? When it's convenient, we interpret exactly as written. When not so much, then as intended. When convenient, words mean what they meant then. When not so much, they meant what they mean now. It'd be much more honest if you just said "I have reached the conclusion I want and here is one possible reading of the constitution that supports it" rather than going through this transparent song and dance of pretending you arrived at the conclusion from some sort of first principles.

what's interpreted as written by me or by judges that i agreed with, that originalism would interpret differently? which scotus decisions do you have in mind based on textualism that would have been different under originalism? afaik the court never had a textualist majority and no major decision is based on textualism

There are scotus decisions i consider horrific (in terms of their outcomes) but that are fully constitutional , and i don't ask for them to be reversed. Like those about the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Or the legality of drug laws (state level).

I think both textualism and originalism are silly and used as a pretext by you (and judges) to justify the conclusions you want.

Textualism is just limited, in too many cases you can't go from it to actual applications of the law.

Originalism is just the only way text should be interpreted, as the alternative is literally what you attribute to originalism, ie to read in it whatever you like and want in the present disregarding the actual meaning of a rule. Which is what the left has done for too long and now , finally, is getting fixed bit by bit.

You can't and shouldn't have any change in constitutional matters without amendments. If society changes and wants change, change the constitution by amendment. Getting new people literally invent meaning at will breaks the fabric of the rule of law.

For example if something was legal for a while it's impossible to claim it's unconstitutional until you change the constitution. Quite impossible unless you completly disregard the rule of law.

The irony in all of this is, the sort of tyrannical government that would be reasonable to rise up against is exactly the tyrannical government the guns rights folks would like to establish.

And where did your revolting friend go? Did he just do a drive by?

It's not about divining.

Take abortion, you have decades with constitutionally uncontroversial anti abortion statutes after the 14a gets passed, it clearly means the 14a doesn't cover it. Very easy and straight forward with no divination required.

It was never a federal constitution right.

Same for gay marriage, illegal everywhere in the nation for 140+ years after those amendments, then you "discover" it's a constitutional right? Lol.

Change the constitution to add it. With amendments.

You are proposing to go through the amendment process every time a constitutional question arises instead of having the Supreme Court decide it?

I am proposing going through the amendment process every time you want to change something that has been different from what you like for a while yes.

And until the left went crazy that's how they did it.

Slavery was banned WITH AN AMENDMENT. Prohibition was ended WITH AN AMENDMENT. The federal income tax was introduced WITH AN AMENDMENT. Women got the vote WITH AN AMENDMENT.

You get the picture.

SCOTUS should only be needed for bread and butter complexities that aren't obvious when you draft statutes.

Let me give you an example: does the state or the fed get the first cut of your income? Well that is a complicated constitutional question someone has to answer. SCOTUS job.

Does the no double Jeopardy rule work when it's state and federal prosecution?hell of a question, let's leave it to the experts.

Can the fed after 170 years of never giving a **** regulate stuff nationwide "because the environment"? Lol no unless you change the constitution and give that power to the feds.

you should go propose that to your government.

Sounds very nativist of you

you need a license just to transport a gun to go hunting. go find an italy gun forum for your walls of text on what should and shouldn't be

Please remind we are in Italy and normal people here never give a duck about what the laws on the books are for anything, if they aren't strictly enforced.

Works for many other topics as well we don't have German bloods, no one here believes that following the laws is an actual moral imperative, we all live under the assumptions laws are written by distant aliens who hate us, and we do what we think is right hoping it's not illegal

But constitutions are written by infallible, prescient aliens who presented themselves in human form centuries ago and bequeathed us some sacred documents, which we should adhere to unquestioningly thereafter (as long as it suits our agenda, of course). Gotcha.

Between the revolution guy and the one critical mass of enriched uranium per head guy, I am not sure who is more insane here. Crack on, fellas, it's a tiebreaker.

If I ever get to write a constitution, the foreword to it will be "The following is the best efforts of the author, working with contemporaneous information. Note to future commentators: do NOT interpret this document literally".

Who decides when a constitutional question requires an amendment? You? Oh wait, that would be the same court that decides all the other constitutional questions. Congratulations on making an argument where the best imagery I can think of is a snake eating its own tail.

at some point some entity will have the power to decide.

and we are discussing about how it should decide.

I like the idea of a SCOTUS that rejects the possibility of sweeping changes without a constitutional amendment. that's an originalist SCOTUS.

you seem to prefer a SCOTUS that with small temporary majorities enacts incredible, unprecedented changes.

most constitution require super majorities for big changes for a reason. having SCOTUS change society in big ways with simple majorities is a way to hijack that requirement.

if something isn't obviously right for a vast majority of people it shouldn't be a core pillar of the law of the land (=a part of the constitution)

you dont have a SCOTUS

in Italy as in most other countries we do have a constitutional supreme court

exactly. you don't have a SCOTUS