"We can present a new Declaration to the Trump Government -- that it has become necessary to dissolve the current government"

I have to disagree:

People were incredibly partisan, so partisan that 15-20% of the country actually made good on the threat to move to Canada. Even afterwards, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were mudslingers of a much worse order than Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow.

From the 1800 Campaign of Jefferson vs Adams. " Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Founding fathers went into depth about all arms, they probably didn't intend poor whites or blacks or women to own guns either.

Universal firearm ownership is actually a more radical position than partial gun control, despite the denotative wording of the amendment . If you really look at the contextual arguments that and how (the elite) people thought back then, mass ownership of firearms of any sort was probably only meant for "persons of good standing".

Take for example Article I, Section II, Clause I:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

The House is chosen by the "people", much like the right of the "people" to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

But it wasn't until the XIX amendment that women were allowed to vote. Now it doesn't say anywhere that women couldn't vote, we all consider them "people", but they were prevented from doing so. This shows the founders didn't consider them "people" when they wrote down the word "people" or else they would have the right to vote from 1776.

Therefore, the founders did not intend for any "person" to be able to access firearms, muskets or nukes.

Now, since the Supreme Court has made many decisions since then and has not relied on an originalist/purposive methodology, it's kind of irrelevant that women weren't people for the purposes of parts of the constitution. What now that basically everyone and everything is a person now since cases like Plyler v. Doe (illegals are persons) and Citizens United (corps are persons).

Personally, I don't care either way if people have guns. I just think it's funny and I'm interested in female gun ownership laws in 1800 and how they reconciled it with voting rights constitutionally.

/r/ShitPoliticsSays Thread Parent Link - np.reddit.com