Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
"Well regulated".

It constantly amazes me that people hang up on those two words. It's pretty basic English comprehension, though phrased a bit archaically. I'll update it for you:

Because a well regulated militia's necessary for the security of a free state, the government's not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Does that mean membership in a militia is required to bear arms? No, of course not. It just provides the reason for keeping the infringement on the right to keep and bear arms a no-no.

And all it takes to take the 2nd away is an amendment. You don't need a constitutional convention for that. Considering that the bill of rights were 10 changes (or amendments) to the original constitution to begin with, it is pretty amazing that people don't think we could simply get rid of any of them.

People are aware that the votes do not even remotely begin to exist for that. You can't repeal an amendment, or get a new one passed, with less than 10% support.

 d-usa wrote:
Does it say that?

Or is that just one if the many interpretations of that?

Its from knowledge of the English Language as it was used at the time. We today are very dumbed down compared to back then.

Just because its not popular does not mean that the cries of "it's in the constitution, it cannot be changed" are valid.

Fact is that the constitution doesn't mention gun ownership at all. It was an amendment to the original paper that gave that to us and it can just as easily be taken away.

You do know that the Constitution only passed because the writers of the original document promised to add the Bill of Rights shortly afterwards. The original 10 articles are as good as part of the original because without their presence the original would never have been ratified.

They were still 10 amendments, and we have made many more since then. There is nothing in the constitution that we cannot change if we want to.

He's right that they could be repealed, but I'm not sure what point he's driving at. They won't be, and even he has to know that. And until they are repealed, they have the same force as anything else in the document.

Congress can write and add/remove ammendments all day long. They can not ratify them. Only the States can. And if there are not enough States on board with the changes, the ammendments will not stand. That is the very deffinition of a Constitutional Convention.

 Seaward wrote:
He's right that they could be repealed, but I'm not sure what point he's driving at. They won't be, and even he has to know that. And until they are repealed, they have the same force as anything else in the document.

People thought that alcohol would never be banned, or that slavery would be banned, but it happened.

Just saying that the cries of "constitution ueber alles" are just as pointless as "ban all guns everywhere". Too much dumb extremes going on by both sides.

Yeah, it could change but so could the original document. Saying "it could change" is a pointless thing to say. Constitutional Amendments are very VERY hard to get passed.

And the point that that is what the Constitution says still stands. We, the citizens, have the right to have any weapons we want given by the constitution. That right could be revoked by conditional laws that mandate mental evalutions for certain weapons, but the fact remains that the Constitution would allow a citizen to own a functional tank or weaponized Drone if he wished.

 Bonecrusher 6 wrote:
Congress can write and add/remove ammendments all day long. They can not ratify them. Only the States can. And if there are not enough States on board with the changes, the ammendments will not stand. That is the very deffinition of a Constitutional Convention.

That is actually not the definition of it.

We have not had a constitutional convention since the first one, despite having made several amendments since then.

We could build a Six Flags on Mars, as long as we're creating a list of possible actions we will not be undertaking within the lifetimes of anyone reading this.

Yeah, there are 2 ways to alter the constitution. A Constitutional Convention, and for an overwhealming majority of Congress to pass it. The second is far easier than the first, and even that is going to be pretty darn difficult.

Given the polarization that exists today I can't see any amendments being added at any time in the forseable future.

On look, a strawmen suddenly appears, nobody saw that coming. What unexpected thing will Seaward do next?

Both are sooo far out there in terms of probability that they may as well be of equal likelyhood. Bulding a 6-flags on Mars has about the same realistic probability as any sort of Consitutional change happening in this current political climate.

The likelihood of a state violating the supremacy clause and arresting a federal officer for enforcing federal law is just as likely as a constitutional amendment, yet here we are in a thread talking about that.

Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.

 Seaward wrote:
Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.

I already acknowledged your clever use of straw men, now you are just showing off.

That word...I don't think it means what you think it means.

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Seriously, I don't know why people go on about free speech so much, we could always get rid of the First Amendment. Nobody ever thought women would get the vote, either.

I already acknowledged your clever use of straw men, now you are just showing off.

He's just gotten excited as he's recently learned what the word means and wants to put it in even more of his arguments.

I'll use the English version next, that way I increase my hipster credentials.

Meanwhile in the real world...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So this means we can't have libel and slander laws?
Ban child pr0n?
Restrict when and where people may hold protest rallies?
Allow for animal sacrifice?
No noise laws?
No laws to protect classified information?
Nothing to stop reporters from tapping phones?


Of course not. We have all of those yet somehow we do not live in a dystopian tyranny.

Rights have limits, the most famous standard being my right to extend my arm ends at the tip of your nose.

So how do we do that? State, Local and Federal Courts and the Supreme Court rule on conflicts among rights.

And the US Supreme Court has never said there can be NO firearm restrictions. While it struck down an outright ban in DC it has upheld other restrictions. So no, complete firearm freedom does not and never has existed in the US.

So for those who want complete firearm freedom, the boat to Somalia sets sail over there.

Somalia is the most bootstrappy country in the world. It's truly a libertarian utopia.

An Ammendment, either being added or repealed or modified, *can not* stand without the ratification by the majority of the States. That is the law.

Prohibition, and it's subsequent reversal, was ratified by a sufficiency of the States. Women's Sufferage was ratified by a sufficiency of the States.

The original 10 Ammendments were ratified by the States as they existed at that time, not by Congressional Fiat.

Any declaration by Washington D.C. that infringes on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights is purely illegal. It does not matter how many of the House or Senate agree to the proposed law. It does not matter if the President agrees with it (or even writes yet another Executive Order). If the States decide not to accept the law, then the law is utterly powerless.

Just throwing in my 2 cents, the Bill of Rights are technically the 3rd through 12th proposed amendments. Article the First and Article the Second were passed through Congress but the majority of states never ratified the First (shame since to me it is probably the most important of them all), and the Second wasnt ratified until 1992. The point I am making is that there is no expiration date on Amendments, so even if its not ratified now, it could be ratified down the line over time as the political landscape changes.

As for well-regulated, the modern day interpretation would be tosay it means subject to federal oversight. The correct "interpretation", really translation, would be well-organized and trained. If you bother to look up period texts written/quoted from the founding fathers you will see that this is quite clear (the Federalist Papers being one of the best examples, and afaik the guiding documents by which all interpretations of the constitution should be based). Using the phrase well-regulated to imply that the federal government can infringe on the 2nd flies in the face of reality.

Also worth noting that the founding fathers considered the right to bear arms as an uninfringible natural right/law that could not and should not be taken away by any government body. There was A LOT of debate about the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment. One side feared that its inclusion implied that the government could attempt to strip this right from its citizens at a later date, the other side feared that without it the same thing would occur.

 Bonecrusher 6 wrote:


Any declaration by Washington D.C. that infringes on our Constitutionally guaranteed rights is purely illegal. It does not matter how many of the House or Senate agree to the proposed law. It does not matter if the President agrees with it (or even writes yet another Executive Order). If the States decide not to accept the law, then the law is utterly powerless.

If the courts uphold it then a law does not violate our rights.

And no, States do NOT have veto power over Federal laws.

And finally the way to challenge federal laws is first in Congress, then in the courts. It is not threatening to imprison cops for enforcing the law of the land.



At least I can take comfort in knowing that if gun control foes really live in this fantasy world they'll have not chance of doing anything effective.

Keep thinking like that. Why not? It's your right to be as wrong as you wish.

Understand that ALL POWERS not specifically granted to the Federal Government are held to the states and the people. That means that every law on the books may be challenged by the States if enough of them decide to do so. You would be correct that challenging the laws as established would be done in Congress and the Courts. But you are incorrect about the rights of States to veto the laws as they apply to the States themselves.

 Bonecrusher 6 wrote:
@Kid_Kyoto...

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any single provision for the reasonable restriction of firearms. Not in one single place.

The 2nd Ammendment was put in place so that the people can meet the Government on a level playing field for one simple reason. To prevent tyranny.

Does this mean that we can have semi-auto weapons with high-cap magazines? Yes.

Does this mean that we can have fully automatic machine guns? Yes.

Does this mean that we can own tanks and fighters? Sure does.

Does this mean that we can own naval combat ships or nuclear missiles? Yep.

Do I really think we need tanks, ships, fighters or nukes? Not really. For one thing the expense in maintenance alone is rediculous, and there is plenty of evidence that plenty of people in this world are only a slight push from falling off their rockers.

Now, nowhere in the 2nd is it said that any form of weapon is illegal to own. Nowhere does it say that the Federal Government is allowed to set restrictions at all. Any restrictions must be by the State level government. And for those restrictions to apply at the Federal level, they must hold a Constitutional Convention and add a new Ammendment or revise an existing one.

So just to check, you are in fact conceding that this is a big pile of Bovine Excrement yes?

Nope. That was a realistic evaluation of the allowances and the risks involved.

Not one mention was ever made, in the Constitution, that the people are ever to be subject to the Government. There is plenty of precedent that shows that the Government is to be subject to us. Of course, over the last few decades, there has been a building precedent where the people are just rolling over and taking the status quo. This is wrong. This is not what our Founding Fathers ever intended. Hence the 2nd Ammendment.

Was it written in the days of muskets and wooden sailing ships? Sure it was. Does it mean that the only protections in the Ammendment are for ownership of that era's weapons? No. It was written so that the common man could stand against the eventual tyrrany of the Government. When they begin taking away freedoms and levying taxes for the sake of propping up an ever growing federal overloard, they are becoming tyrranical. As times have changed, as technology has developed, the weapons have become ever more powerful and sophisticated. In order to maintain parity of power, which was the intent of the 2nd Ammendment, then by extension of the Founders' logic, no military technology is allowed to be illegal to own.

And according to that line if thinking all speech is legal and it is tyranical to impose any restrictions on it.

Yet here we are...

Technically it is true that any restrictions on speech are unconstitutional. However the government has imposed restrictions on it that the people have not opposed. The only reason they stand is because the people have not raised complain and/or the Judicial branch has(by its own judgement) determined they don't violate the constitution. Of course the authority of the Judicial branch, and any of the branches, only extends as far as the people will allow it. With the final judgement being the people removing the government officials from power by force if need be.

It is my opinion that there needs to be more control over the Judicial branch. The current system of lifetime appointments with little accountability to the people is not ideal and I feel it could be better. I am not sure how it could be made any better however, but I am sure a solution exists.