[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: 79477
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#3. To: tpaine (#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?

Nolu Chan is legally correct. Through the amendment process the Constitution can be amended to say anything, except removing equal representation in the Senate. THAT requires unanimity of the states.

The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional".

Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do.

The Constitution does not guarantee MORAL content. The people have to do that. If the people become depraved and enact depraved laws, then "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". America was always depraved. First there was slavery, then there was Indian genocide and segregation. Those things ended, but now we have abortion and the glorification of buggery.

Most people think that those evils - slavery, segregation, abortion, gay marriage - are "sufferable evils" and don't rebel. And that would be the case with the Second Amendment abolition also, were it to pass. (Truth is, it could not pass in the current environment).

Mandatory sacrifice of firstborn children would be bad enough to justify treason, and would swiftly result in its outbreak.

Traitors who win are called "Founding Fathers" of the new order they usher in.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   10:49:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13, tomder 55, gatlin (#3)

The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional".

Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do.

You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war?

tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   11:10:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine, Vicomte13, tomder 55, Y'ALL (#5)

You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war?

Let's flip this; What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   13:01:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Liberator (#12)

Let's flip this; What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??

Did you want MINE? Or just tpaine's?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   13:58:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#22)

I originally asked for paine's solution, but yes, I'd also be interested in yours as well.

Thanks.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   14:04:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 24.

#32. To: Liberator (#24)

I originally asked for paine's solution, but yes, I'd also be interested in yours as well.

Here was your question: "What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??"

I've already said that I don't care about their intent. I am not aiming to get to some constitutional answer. What I am aiming at is getting to the RIGHT answer, and then having the Constitution interpreted, or amended, to support that right answer. The logic of the right answer should pervade the system, and be taught through the schools.

In other words, the Progressives, Liberals and Communists are not wrong in their APPROACH, of seeking to structure society using control of institutions and education, to achieve a better society. What they are wrong about are the goals themselves. They seek maximalist solutions that govern all aspects of human life, and THAT rapidly becomes an oppressive corset, because it intrudes on everything.

I recognize the truth: in modern urban society, unlike in old rural society, there is a fundamental need for universal public education, universal public health care, a universal public system for unemployment, poverty and disability relief, and a universal public pension system. These things are structural necessities. Without them, people will be illiterate, destitute, and literally dying in the street, as they do in parts of India. Without public sewers, there were outbreaks of cholera in all of the major cities of the 19th Century, and there will be again. We need sewers to sustain life, and sustaining life is more important, by far, than abstract philosophical ideas about property rights and the right to not be taxed.

Arguing from legalism is not the answer, and that is what any argument from the Constitution, or the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, descends into: legalism. Legalism leads to jail time for a woman who was late in paying a $10 dog licensing fee. And that's dumb. It's upholding the "dignity" of a legal system at the expense of rational common sense, and at the expense of financial prudence.

(All you do in such a case is simply levy her bank account and take the money for the license, through a simplified procedure. If she has no bank account, you garnish her wages. Currently, the process of putting a person in jail is actually simpler than taking some of their money to pay a fine, and that is precisely backwards. Physical liberty is more important than the respect for petty rules or petty pocket change. The Saudis would cut off a hand over a stolen dollar. A civilized society takes $4 back for the stolen dollar (restitution plus treble damages), and does it in a simple, automated way that is easy to do, and easy to appeal. We make law hard, because it is in the interest of lawyers and those who control the legal system to do so. We need to chop that away.)

Instead, we have to find common principles upon which people in a pluralistic society, Christian and secular, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto and Wiccan, male and female, gay and straight, introverted and extroverted, can agree.

I think the alpha thing to sort out is this: When is it acceptable to kill other people or physically harm them? Under what circumstances. This goes to the question of coercion and when force may be offered, by the state.

When may force be offered in DEFENSE, and when may defense become so active that it is, in effect, legitimate offense?

This forces us to grapple with the question of when life begins, and when we are going to protect it. How much force the state can use to enforce its laws and when the lawbreaking simply has to be tolerated (or the law removed) because the amount of force used would exceed reason.

Legalists will say that NO amount of force is too excessive to uphold the concept of the Rule of Law. I disagree.

That is where I will begin, because it's the only place that people of all or no religions, races, sexes and sexualities have a necessary common interest. Live and let live does require the let live part, and that's where the foundations should be laid.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09 14:38:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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