[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed Source: LF URL Source: [None] Published: Jul 9, 2015 Author: tpaine Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 79345 Comments: 255 The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 146. #9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Yes, I have a comment (or two.) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   12:57:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:03:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: nolu chan (#87) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   22:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: tpaine (#94) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:53:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: nolu chan (#98) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   23:01:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: tpaine (#101) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   2:16:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>> Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   11:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: tpaine (#117) Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   19:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: nolu chan (#141) I answered your question. Yep, you answered the question that lead to this thread. Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. - - Fine.. Here's another: --- Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. I do not ineluctably deem that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. Your turn, -- answer mine. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   21:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 146. #147. To: tpaine (#146) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 #25. To: misterwhite (#24) Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it? It seems clear that the Supremes indicated that in 1939. More recently, they indicated "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) Note however, this quote from the article. After Heller, there is not much left of Miller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Scalia's Opinion in Heller is correct. Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Heller at 592 c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....” Heller at 579-581 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990): “‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-04   18:22:48 ET nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10 22:29:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #149. To: tpaine (#146) [tpaine #117] And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. [tpaine #146] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. You have been taking this same verbal dump on the internet for at least 8 years. Here is my answer to you from 8 years ago. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=All&#C99 nolu chan to tpaine. tpaine's #86 was also addressed to robertpaulsen. #99. To: tpaine (#86) [tpaine] So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms? I have not addressed the subject of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but for the record I will provide my opinion on it. I do not hold the opinion you have repeatedly attempted to attribute to me. Many amendments assert something on the order of "Congress shall make no law...." The Second Amendment was intentionally phrased differently: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. At that time, the militia was not the National Guard but "We the People." The Federal standing army was very small. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln had a standing army of only 75,000 men. This was intentional. The protection against an power-grabbing Federal government was an armed citizenry, and the State Militias were intended to be able to be more powerful than the Federal standing army and act as our protection against Federal expansion. The right to keep and bear arms was then as fundamental as any other right, such as free speech. I find the right to be a personal one and reject the notion that it only applies to protecting the right to arm the National Guard or something similar. At the time of passage, "we the people" and the militia were synonymous. Its purpose is to protect the right of "we the people" as individuals to keep and bear arms. This should prevent the Federal government from infringing in any way. Interesting are the musings of Laurence Tribe on the observations of Akhil Amar to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship, and therefore assertable against the states as such. Further, as a right of individuals, it would be assertable against the Federal government. I would hold that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship at the time of the framing and, therefore, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot be abridged by state law. [...] nolu chan posted on 2007-10-31 21:36:38 ET [Locked] nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10 23:05:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #150. To: tpaine (#146) [tpaine #146] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Seek psychiatric help. You have been acting like yukon now for at least 8 years. http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=100#C100 #100. To: roberpaulsen, nolu chan (#95) Chan: I did not, as you put it, ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms. I merely documented that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States. They were restrictions on the Federal government. Not true, -- you are arguing for the concept "that the Bill of Rights [thus the 2nd] did not originally apply to the States. They were restrictions on the Federal government." Admit it. If the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States -- and they were restrictions ONLY on the Federal government, -- then States can claim the power to prohibit arms, -- as California is doing. [...] tpaine posted on 2007-10-31 21:36:39 ET [Locked] http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=104#C104 #104. To: tpaine (#101) I repeat again, for possible penetration -- I believe the RKBA should be protected against Federal or State infringement. So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms? Why do you keep repeating that silly bilge? You can repeat it until you are blue in the face and I still made no such argument. If I had, you would quote what I said, rather than offer your blather instead. Which is it? -- Are you in "perfect agreement" with paulsen? -- Or with our Constitution's 2nd? That the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states is law that has been well settled over two centuries. That you do not like that fact does not change it. As I explicitly stated, that situation changed with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the Fourteenth Amendment is nearly 140 years old, it is time to stop hyperventilating about the state of the law before it. I am in agreement with paulsen where he stated that the BOR did not originally apply to the states and has since not been fully incorporated. Two centuries of judicial precedent leaves that as settled law. I did not express any agreement (or disagreement) about RKBA. I gave you my opinion in #99. Many amendments assert something on the order of "Congress shall make no law...." The Second Amendment was intentionally phrased differently: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. At that time, the militia was not the National Guard but "We the People." The Federal standing army was very small. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln had a standing army of only 75,000 men. This was intentional. The protection against an power-grabbing Federal government was an armed citizenry, and the State Militias were intended to be able to be more powerful than the Federal standing army and act as our protection against Federal expansion. The right to keep and bear arms was then as fundamental as any other right, such as free speech. I find the right to be a personal one and reject the notion that it only applies to protecting the right to arm the National Guard or something similar. At the time of passage, "we the people" and the militia were synonymous. Its purpose is to protect the right of "we the people" as individuals to keep and bear arms. This should prevent the Federal government from infringing in any way. Interesting are the musings of Laurence Tribe on the observations of Akhil Amar to the effect that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship, and therefore assertable against the states as such. Further, as a right of individuals, it would be assertable against the Federal government. I would hold that the right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship and a fundamental right at the time of the framing and, therefore, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, it cannot be abridged by state law. If one holds the right to keep and bear arms as a privilege of national citizenship, it is protected from Federal intervention by the Second Amendment and from State intervention by the Fourteenth Amendment's application of the Second Amendment to the States. Our Constitution's Second Amendment refers to, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It does not establish the RKBA as some new right, but acknowledges it as an existing right which the people brought with them into the Union. As the people never ceded this right, they continue to hold it. The Second Amendment prohibits Federal infringement of a right which predates the Constitution and all of its amendments. The parties to the Constitution were States, not individuals. The Constitution refers to "the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." In drafting a Constitution, the parties to the Constitution apparently did not see a need to guarantee protection from themselves. The people, acting in their sovereign capacity, organized into political units called states, chose to create a Federal government and prescribe limits for that Federal government. Whatever power was not granted to the Federal government was retained by the States or the people. As demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for all of the following to be true: The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States. The Bill of Rights has since been incompletely incorporated. The right to keep and bear arms was viewed as a privilege of national citizenship and a fundamental right at the time of the framing The Second Amendment protects against Federal infringement of RKBA. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment protection against State infringement of RKBA. nolu chan posted on 2007-11-01 0:57:04 ET [Locked] nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10 23:27:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 146. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com