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: 79280
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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
Comments (1-130) not displayed.
.
.
.
#131. To: CZ82 (#130)
That's a cute one....I have copied it for future use, thanks.
I’m done here. I wouldn't even waste my time starting with him. Why beat your head on the tpaine brick wall by arguing with someone that asks this... "Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority".... and willingly lives in a nazi state of Kookifornia... and paying that tyrannical state some of the highest taxes for the chains he wears.
Yo, anyone at home in your head. Nobody made any claim about desireability. That has not been the issue being discussed. The issue is what the Consitution permits re: the giving or taking of so-called rights. And what the Constitution permits is that a super majority can change it without limits on what may or may not be changed. Further, as long as the process described in the Consitution is followed SCOTUS can't do thing one about it. The only recourse appears to be rebellion. What's the chances of that occuring? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
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) And typically, like gatlin and grandisland, they quit when challenged. - Pitiful little people..
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) That's what you (prohibitionists?) claim, without constitutional proofs. Can you answer the question or not?
I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't.
When you boycott nazi occupied Kookifornia, buy moving out of that shithole state, I'll agree with everything you say. Until then, you are... H Y P O C R I T I C A L and have no room to even have a constitutional opinion. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yes. The 17th amendment conflicted with a fundamental concept of the original constitutional government under which the House was the representative body of the people, elected by popular vote of the people, and the Senate was the representative body of the state governments, elected by the state legislatures. As revised, the state legislatures elect no representative to the Federal government, and the popularly elected senator may be a 20- or 30-year incumbent not representative of the majority party in the current state legislature. It's what the people chose to do.
I answered your question, i.e. - no-one made a claim as to desireability. I certainly didn't. What part of that answer don't you understand? All anyone said is that the Constitution allows itself to amended in away as long as the procedure described in the Consitution is followed Do you have another question? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thus in a liberal-dominated court, aren't the USCON's principles severely compromised, as well as ALL justice, law, and the Bill of Rights itself? If Congress refuses to enact laws, and retain its status as co-equal branch of government, and remains derelict in its duty, what recourse have We The People in recalibrating the im-balance before its too late? Not by the Legislature or Executive. The Court can and has reversed itself on an interpretation, but it does not hold its prior holding unconstitutional. The people can amend the Constitution. Only a majority of the justices sitting on a case can issue a holding. A lifetime appointment (during good behavior) cannot be rescinded. A justice can be impeached. A politically dominated court had a profound effect on how our government and laws came to be viewed. At the outset, the capital in the southern location of D.C. was given to the southrons. The ability of the president to appoint the Supreme Court justices had a significant and lasting effect. SCOTUS had five justices early on. Between Washington and Adams, they appointed 13 justices. That would be 13 members of the Federalist party, the last of which was CJ John Marshall. Marshall remained CJ for over 30 years. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams appointed members of the Dem.-Rep. party. Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, and Polk appointed 11 straight members of the Democrat party. Jackson appointed Taney who remained CJ nearly 30 years. The driving force for congress critters today is to get reelected. The people of 435 districts vote for the guy who can deliver the pork to their district and complain about the other 434. Congress properly flexing its muscle vs. the Executive may not be popular at election time. The Prez has the bully pulpit and an endless supply of spokesholes. Delivering pork and not doing unpopular stuff works.
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.
/sarc. The entire Constitution is unconstitutional, and null and void, as it was proposed and ratified in violation of then existing organic law, the Articles of Confederation. Article 13 clearly and explicitly stated: The Constitution was proposed to be effective upon the ratification of NINE states. The new constitutional government was formed and George Washington was inaugurated as its new President, after the ratification by ELEVEN states. See: Being the ELEVEN STATES that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States. Containing an Impartial Account of The most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable Papers laid before and offered to the House.. Taken in short hand by Thomas Lloyd. Volume I New-York, Printed for the Editor by Harrison and Purdy, M,DCC,LXXXIX North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified. Congressional Register Volume 1, aka Lloyd's Debates (1789) By what lawful authority or power was the "perpetual union" under the Articles of Confederation destroyed, and a new union of ELEVEN states formed? How could any alteration lawfully be done when the Articles provide that they will be inviolably observed by every state, and no alteration could be made unless confirmed by the legislature of every state? How was the Bill of Rights passed through Congress with only ELEVEN states in the union? Is the Constitution unlawful, null and void? If not, why not?
The Senate was the construct of the Connecticut compromise ;one of many such compromises that united the 13 states into a Federal Republic. I personally think we had some great statesmen in the Senate in the 19th century . But the people thought there was a legitimate reason for changing it. The principle argument was that state legislatures selecting led to corruption. But how can we say today that the current system is any less corrupt? We went from pols being corrupt to pols being corrupt AND states losing their representation in the Federal Government . So if you are asking me if I'd be in favor of a repeal amendment .My answer would be yes . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
then again ,the legislature of my state ;NY ,is one of the most dysfunctional ,and corrupt in the nation. then again ,the people of my state are pretty wacked too.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I was not really asking, but observing that an amendment can be odds with the existing system and take away the representation of state governments. The people have the power, whether the exercise of it was wise is debatable. The Framers had some wisdom in the room, and they may have had it right.
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) 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.
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 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. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. Heller at 592 Heller at 579-581 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): 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 never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution.
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. 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: 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]
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 Chan: 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 I repeat again, for possible penetration -- I believe the RKBA should be protected against Federal or State infringement. 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. 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. 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: nolu chan posted on 2007-11-01 0:57:04 ET [Locked]
#136. To: tpaine, CZ82 (#134) I don't think I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't. Kluane posted on 2015-07-10 19:02:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply And then (just like clockwork) yukon comes running to their rescue!! LOL. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Here's what Chan posted about that subject: -- Now I have no idea WHY my remark above raised such a hissy fit, -- but obviously, that is what Chan posted. As I said before, this discussion is getting bizarro. Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue?
Because man-made documents, such as Amendments may be changed at any tyme. They are not permanent structures in America or anywhere on this planet.
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? http://ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25">libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 Well bless your heart too. Thanks for the link to that old thread, as it proves my point completely.. You gave up the discussion shortly after the excerpts you just posted because you couldn't refute my answers. --- I urge anyone here to read the complete thread to verify.
Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue? That is not an answer.. Thanks for your comment, Capt Obvious..
You are welcome. So depite your belief that documents are designed to be permanent fixtures of institutions built by men, ant man or group may change them at any tyme.
Not at all. The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government. Naturally, some aspects of it can be changed at any time, but changing its basic principles would be unconstitutional and render null & void the proposed changes.
So, in your opinion, the US Constitution is "immutable" or "unchangeable" ... where does any document suggest that whether within or without the US Constitution?
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government. The declaration of independence is the document that suggests that principle.
Nope. Nope. You can't even find permanent interpretations of GOD in any man-made document or otherwise: called the Bible, Koran, etc.
Whatever.. Why don't you direct your energies to harassing gatlin? -- Your pretty good at that..
In this case, tpaine, you are ripe for ridicule, on your own thread, for considering that the documents formulating the foundations of the US Constitution or even the US Government are sacrosanct.
Hyperbole anyone? Whoever suggested that they were sacrosanct?
I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't. Don't you mean...years, yu-klown? Are you out of rehab already? Your boring style is unmistakable. The partial excerpt...the insult -- trademark yu-klown. I guess you ditched the old-new scriptural citing :-( Kluane National Park and Reserve are two units of Canada's national park system, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Yukon, Canada. Lol...
Then, you know that all documents can be changed including the Bill of Rights irrespective of origininal intentions.
Good catch, lib.
;-)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Yea he's as unmistakeable as a dose of the screaming schitts. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Comments (172 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#132. To: GrandIsland (#128)
(Edited)
#133. To: tpaine (#126)
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable.
#134. To: CZ82, gatlin, grandisland, y'all (#129)
I don't think some folks understand that they shouldn't just be accepting what is going on, that they should be fighting it instead.
#135. To: SOSO, y'all (#133)
Yo, anyone at home in your head. Nobody made any claim about desireability. That has not been the issue being discussed. The issue is what the Consitution permits re: the giving or taking of so-called rights. And what the Constitution permits is that a super majority can change it without limits on what may or may not be changed.
#136. To: tpaine, CZ82 (#134)
I don't think
#137. To: tpaine (#134)
#138. To: tomder55 (#118)
Any amendment that contradicts the text of the Constitution itself or an earlier amendment will nullify the earlier text.
#139. To: tpaine (#135)
Can you answer the question or not?
#140. To: Liberator (#124)
And I suppose unfortunately neither can an "interpretation" *of* the Constitution by any one of nine Justices be deemed "unconstitutional." We are all held hostage by ideologues until they surrender their lifetime appointments (can Congress rescind those "lifetime appointments"?
#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.
#142. To: tpaine, redleghunter (#116)
I contend that an attempt to amend away our enumerated basic human rights would violate the basic principles inherent in our constitution, -- and therefore would be unconstitutional.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
The Congressional Register; or History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America; Namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsyvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina, and Georgia.
#143. To: nolu chan (#138)
It's what the people chose to do.
#144. To: nolu chan (#143)
(Edited)
#145. To: tomder55 (#143)
So if you are asking me if I'd be in favor of a repeal amendment .My answer would be yes .
#146. To: nolu chan (#141)
I answered your question.
Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims.
#147. To: tpaine (#146)
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#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?
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.
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.
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 ....”
1. Operative Clause.
“‘[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.”
#148. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#147)
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
#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.
#99. To: tpaine (#86)
[tpaine] So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms?
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#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.
#100. To: roberpaulsen, nolu chan (#95)
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.
#104. To: tpaine (#101)
So, -- why do you two ~argue for~ the States to have the power to prohibit arms?
Which is it? -- Are you in "perfect agreement" with paulsen? -- Or with our Constitution's 2nd?
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.
#151. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, Liberator, redleghunter, nativist nationalist (#134)
And typically, like gatlin and grandisland, they quit when challenged. - Pitiful little people..
#152. To: CZ82 (#151)
And then (just like clockwork) yukon comes running to their rescue!! LOL.
#153. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#148)
AKA Stone --- nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution.
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.
#154. To: tpaine (#153)
Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue?
#155. To: nolu chan (#147)
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.
#156. To: buckeroo (#154)
Because ---
--- man-made documents, such as Amendments may be changed at any tyme. They are not permanent structures in America or anywhere on this planet.
#157. To: tpaine (#156)
#158. To: buckeroo, y'all (#157)
So depite your belief that documents are designed to be permanent fixtures of institutions built by men, ant man or group may change them at any tyme.
#159. To: tpaine (#158)
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government.
#160. To: buckeroo (#159)
... where does any document suggest that whether within or without the US Constitution?
#161. To: tpaine (#160)
The Constitution is a document designed to be a permanent protection for our inalienable rights within a republican form of government.
The declaration of independence is the document that suggests that principle [suggests permanency].
#162. To: buckeroo, y'all, gatlin (#161)
You can't even find permanent interpretations of GOD in any man-made document or otherwise: called the Bible, Koran, etc.
#163. To: tpaine (#162)
#164. To: buckeroo (#163)
---sacrosanct ---
#165. To: Kluane, aka yu-klown, tpaine, CZ82, Deckard (#136)
(I don't think)
#166. To: tpaine (#164)
#167. To: Liberator (#165)
Kluane National Park and Reserve are two units of Canada's national park system, located in the extreme southwestern corner of Yukon, Canada.
#168. To: buckeroo (#167)
#169. To: Gatlin (#152)
I have a sneaking suspicion he won't be here long
#170. To: CZ82 (#169)
(Edited)
That he is still on everyone's mind and bugs the Hell out of them with the mere mention of his name...
#171. To: Liberator (#165)
is unmistakable.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]