[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: 79258
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 # 37.

#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  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

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.

Disagree wholeheartedly on the above, Vic.

In the relative scheme of things, the America of yore was NOT fundamentally evil OR depraved. Its leadership and citizenry by and large WERE a moral people.

Contemporary America's standards teach a moral relativity. TOTALLY unlike the days of yore -- and even as recently as 50 years ago. Immorality and depravity are now glorified and sanctioned by America's leaders and institutions -- as well as an appreciable number citizenry. The morality as in the days of yore and defined by Biblical principles are now declared the new verboten.

"Always depraved"? Not by a million miles.

America was founded and governed fundamentally and extraordinarily morally and ethically. You can't just cherry-pick the way you have. Its few moral shortcomings were indeed addressed eventually and relatively rapidly -- unlike ANY civilization during the 5,000 prior years of history.

American became immoral and depraved since the regime of Bill Klintoon, accelerated at the speed of light under the anti-Christ, 0blabla, and his minions.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   13:55:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Liberator (#21)

Well, this is where traditional conservatives and I part ways.

I dislike the American Founders and do not hold them in any particular esteem. Therefore, I don't care what their intent was.

What I care about are the wants and needs of 21st Century Americans in 2015.

The structure of government we have underperforms and both under- and over- delivers on many things. To be reasonably free, we need to get society into the sweet spot, which lies above the threshold of enough social infrastructure to provide for the needs of an urbanized society, and below the threshold of overregulation and overcontrol.

Going back to the 1700s will not achieve that. We need sewers, and that means eminent domain, taxation, and greater government imposition on private property than the Founders would have accepted.

Traditional conservatives are 20% of the electorate. There are not enough of you to win. You need allies. Pragmatic libertarians and pragmatic modern religious moralists - people like me - are the natural allies, and we need allies too. But there have to be terms of agreement.

Alliance has to be rooted in the present, without an a priori acceptance of either the Founders' desires, or Christianity or Judaism.

A respect for human life and the desire to be as free as is reasonably possible, to not be ruled over and bullied, has to suffice.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   14:10:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Well, this is where traditional conservatives and I part ways.

I dislike the American Founders and do not hold them in any particular esteem. Therefore, I don't care what their intent was.

That saddens me, Vic. I realize mankind disappoints you -- as they do me. Heck -- *I* disappoint *myself.* By as imperfect as man is, or the Founders were, they chose the option of We-The-People over We-Your-Lords. They rejected man's fundamental instinct to be King of the Hill and narcissism, for a humble governance and personal sovereignty superseding that of "Rulers." When in history has THAT ever been the case? How do you not respect that?? Those Founders pledged and sacrificed EVERYTHING.

What I care about are the wants and needs of 21st Century Americans in 2015.

If ONLY 21st Century narcissism of the ruling elite followed the template of the Founders we wouldn't be in this position of tyranny, pseudo-slavery, and a near-dictatorship.

The structure of government we have underperforms and both under- and over- delivers on many things. To be reasonably free, we need to get society into the sweet spot, which lies above the threshold of enough social infrastructure to provide for the needs of an urbanized society, and below the threshold of overregulation and overcontrol.

Foisting socialism and the 'Great Plantation Society' aka "urban society" RUINED the black family and made generations of blacks fatherless, penniless, and moral-less. Coerced socialism is NOT an American ideal, so I don't know how you can base such a "solution" or responsibility on any moral mooring.

Societies that thrive learn to fish. NOT to be confused with a state-mandated obligation to subsidize the lazy and the irresponsible. The truly needy and lame are a different case, as a measure of Christian charity. The "sweet spot" is a matter of individual motivation and planning -- NOT a bureaucratic "Village" holding gun to the head of the rest of us.

Going back to the 1700s will not achieve that [enough social infrastructure.] We need sewers, and that means eminent domain, taxation, and greater government imposition on private property than the Founders would have accepted.

Pure conjecture. The Founders were wise, and they placed a huge priority on independence, liberty, and commerce and innovation -- but they were also pragmatists.

The society of the Founders already pitched in together and helped build infrastructure for the common good of all -- ports, roads, water/sewerage conduits, achieved in large part by free market capitalists by necessity.

IF you d like to point at FDR's "workfare" programs as a matter of state-mandated socialist "success stories," THEY were indeed successful because they took the idle and used them to built roads, bridges, sewers, tunnels, etc, for a population never imagined, BUT were necessary. Why can't we (as a compromise) put all those unemployed to work on THESE days for public infrastructure projects? Is it because "Workfare" = "slavery" in some minds? OR it it because Union-Commies have made "workfare" a political hot potato?

Traditional conservatives are 20% of the electorate. There are not enough of you to win. You need allies. Pragmatic libertarians and pragmatic modern religious moralists - people like me - are the natural allies, and we need allies too. But there have to be terms of agreement.

Yes, yes....I understand the conservative 20% number....and the necessity to aly with those which we disagree to various degrees. So what shall be THE common thread which binds us?

Alliance has to be rooted in the present, without an a priori acceptance of either the Founders' desires, or Christianity or Judaism....A respect for human life and the desire to be as free as is reasonably possible, to not be ruled over and bullied, has to suffice.

If not bound by traditional embracement of standards of wisdom, liberty, OR the Founders' insistence on personal nd economic sovereignty, than what common cause then binds ANY Americans as allies?

ONLY the private sector

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   14:51:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Liberator (#33) (Edited)

Yes, yes....I understand the conservative 20% number....and the necessity to aly with those which we disagree to various degrees. So what shall be THE common thread which binds us?

If not bound by traditional embracement of standards of wisdom, liberty, OR the Founders' insistence on personal nd economic sovereignty, than what common cause then binds ANY Americans as allies?

ONLY the private sector

No, not "the private sector". Life itself. A respect for life itself.

First, foremost, we have to decide how sacred life is, and why that is so, and what are its parameters, when can it be taken, and when not.

This provides a template for military affairs, law enforcement, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.

For the religious, life is sacred because of a commandment of God. For the secular, the "sacredness" of life is a matter of what people value.

It's finding the article of common interest, for different reasons, where cooperation is possible, because the subject of life itself moves a great deal of freight.

Then we expand out from life to consider other liberties, including financial liberty. In the process, we find pragmatic agreement based on different personal beliefs.

This is the approach that can work between seculars and Christians, and between Republicans and Democrats, or so-called "liberals", "libertarians" and "conservatives".

Insisting on crucifying the country to the opinions of the Founders won't fly for the simple reason that the vast majority of the people don't care what the Founders thought, and won't. More and more people don't care what Jesus thought either. And Catholics and Protestants think that Jesus thought very different things. Nobody is going to accept anybody else's doctrine. So IF the basis of building anything must be that we all accept somebody else's fundamental doctrine, that means that we all lose, and those who have the largest modern doctrines win.

But if we find common moral ground on key issues, and accept and understand that others who do not share our philosophical convictions will go no farther with us than that, we can form quite an immense group.

There's no better place to start than you and me.

You're a Protestant Christian. I'm a sloppdox Catholic whose reasoning is not based on Scripture but on my own intuitions of right and wrong. I think there is PLENTY of common ground between us, if we try to find it. It's a cinch that we'll never find it by talking about Thomas Jefferson, because I will focus on his hypocrisy. Nor will we find it by discussing St. Paul and Jesus, because our respective Churches actually believe that those men meant different things by what they said.

So, instead of refighting the Reformation, the Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, the Great Society and all of the rest, and losing the moment, let's seize the moment.

Here's a proposition: Human life is fundamental to all of our discussions. As a general rule, people should not kill other people, but sometimes we recognize that they may have to.

I would think that every rational person would accept this statement as true: "As a general rule, we all agree that people should not kill other people, but we recognize that sometimes we may have to."

Follow me here.

Do you agree with this statement: "As a general rule, people should not kill other people, but we recognize that sometimes they may have to." ?

This is the first brick for building consensus. It doesn't matter WHY you think it - Christ, YHWH, ahimsa, the Bhudda, your own personal ethics, secular reasoning. The key question is not WHY you agree with the statement, but that you agree with it. Because if you do, then we've found complete common ground, and we can try to take a second step.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   15:29:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 37.

#46. To: Vicomte13 (#37)

The vast majority of the people don't care what the Founders thought, and won't. More and more people don't care what Jesus thought either.

IF this the case -- that the majority believe in NOTHING but a narcissistic vision straight out of lying lips of the asp -- then the Republic shall die ignominiously, and with it soul of the nation as well.

Follow me here.

Do you agree with this statement: "As a general rule, people should not kill other people, but we recognize that sometimes they may have to." ?

Yes.

Ecclesiastics sez there is a "time for all seasons."

This is the first brick for building consensus....The key question is not WHY you agree with the statement, but that you agree with it. Because if you do, then we've found complete common ground, and we can try to take a second step.

Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09 16:23:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

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