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.

So passing laws that you disagree with is corrupt? That's.... and interesting way to live.

 CptJake wrote:
I guess another way to ask the same question would be:

Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?

The 2nd could be repealed at any point via a simple constitutional and lawful process. If such a process ever takes place, then it happens because there is enough support in the population for that change because it would require lawful elections that resulted in a federal congress willing to propose that constitutional change lawful elections that resulted in enough states having a legislature that would ratify such a change.

At this point your scenario becomes "would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die who love their guns more than their constitution".

But I have had more than one Constitution worshiping patriot make it clear to me that they will burn the constitution as soon as they disagree with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

Not if the 2nd is repealed via the lawful and constitutional process.

It's almost as if the founders put such a process into the constitution so that it could be changed as the times change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You can releal ammendments you know...

Edit: misread.

Exactly, hence why prohibition is no longer the law of the land despite there being an amendment saying it's the law.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?

An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?

An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?

The 2nd isn't tyranny.
Making any amendment permanent would be tyranny.

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?

An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?

The 2nd isn't tyranny.
Making any amendment permanent would be tyranny.

The inclusion of the bill of rights was required for ratification of the constitution. The bill of rights IS the foundation of this government. If this government is to remain in place all of the bill of rights must be permanent. The bill of rights has stood the test of time for over 200 years without need for change because all of them are specific grants of liberty to the people and restrictions placed on the government to protect the people. It would be disingenuous of any government to try to repeal any of the bill of rights and also I can assure you - there is no legal way to remove any one of them.

Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.

Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.

 Forar wrote:
So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.

Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?

I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.

Just checking in.

Young man the Revolution will not be Televised!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.

Since only one minor provision has been repealed your argument falls.

 d-usa wrote:
Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.

Slavery has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Absolutely nothing.

You are missing the point, gotta work on those reflexes.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.

The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.

Are you talking about the Powder Alarm? If so, that was a battle only in the loosest sense of the word and not at all as simple as "The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us."

The spark that set the forest ablaze.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.

Since only one minor provision has been repealed your argument falls.

Not really. All I'm arguing is that he is wrong when he says that it is permanent. They could be repealed, it's just that there is no reason to do so.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The spark that set the forest ablaze.

By the time of the Powder Alarm the forest was already ablaze. That's why so many people were focused on British troop movements involving the control of British munitions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The inclusion of the bill of rights was required for ratification of the constitution. The bill of rights IS the foundation of this government. If this government is to remain in place all of the bill of rights must be permanent.

No, that isn't true. The foundation of the US Federal Government is the Constitution less all of it's Amendments. The Amendments are very important, but the fundamental structure of the US Federal Government would remain without them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It would be disingenuous of any government to try to repeal any of the bill of rights and also I can assure you - there is no legal way to remove any one of them.

Any Amendment included in The Bill of Rights can be legally removed by another Amendment. It is highly unlikely that will happen, but it is legally possible.

 whembly wrote:

The Bill of Rights (where the 2nd Amendment is derived) was about restraining the Federal Government.

Which is why Constitutional Amendments don't govern state laws or municipal regulations....oh wait.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I guess another way to ask the same question would be:

Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?

The 2nd could be repealed at any point via a simple constitutional and lawful process. If such a process ever takes place, then it happens because there is enough support in the population for that change because it would require lawful elections that resulted in a federal congress willing to propose that constitutional change lawful elections that resulted in enough states having a legislature that would ratify such a change.

At this point your scenario becomes "would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die who love their guns more than their constitution".

But I have had more than one Constitution worshiping patriot make it clear to me that they will burn the constitution as soon as they disagree with it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

Not if the 2nd is repealed via the lawful and constitutional process.

It's almost as if the founders put such a process into the constitution so that it could be changed as the times change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You can releal ammendments you know...

Edit: misread.

Exactly, hence why prohibition is no longer the law of the land despite there being an amendment saying it's the law.

Again, put up or shut up. Only one has been repealed and it was bogus to begin with. The Second Amendmnet is part of the Bill of Rights. You with that at your political peril.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.

Again, try it.

Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.

NO.

Read a book. it required the ACW first.

The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.

So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.

Again, try it.

Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.

I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.

I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.

Now do you get what I am saying?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.

Again, try it.

Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.

I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.

I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.

Now do you get what I am saying?

Exactly.

I am pro-constitution, which includes the 2nd as well as a process to repeal it. I don't think it will happen nor do I want it to happen. But people claiming it can't be changed or arguing that they will rise up if it is changed are no better than people wanting to ignore the 2nd as long as it is law.

 d-usa wrote:
The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.

So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.

The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.

 Frazzled wrote:

please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.

When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The Bill of Rights (where the 2nd Amendment is derived) was about restraining the Federal Government.

Which is why Constitutional Amendments don't govern state laws or municipal regulations....oh wait.

Erm... what's the point in this? Historically, I'm right and it wasn't until the SC incorporated those onto the States.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.

So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.

The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.

But you agree that it can get changed? That's my point. Someone (I forget who) was saying it couldn't legally get changed. But it can. Same goes for every amendment. You just need both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states (or 2/3, not sure off the top of my head) to agree. Which is why it's nigh impossible. It was designed to be really hard to do. A vast majority of the country has to agree.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?

An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?

A law that cannot be changed even if 100% of the population wanted it gone is beyond stupid and squarely in the territory of parody. To impose today's values permanently on following generations without any sort of way to adapt to changing realities is imposing your own will on every future American without them having even a theoretical say in it, and thus tyrrany. You're not protecting anyone from anything, you're just trying to cement your own point of view as permanent.

 Frazzled wrote:

When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?

He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.

 whembly wrote:

Erm... what's the point in this? Historically, I'm right and it wasn't until the SC incorporated those onto the States.

The point is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, restrains more than the Federal Government due to Supreme Court rulings grounded in the doctrine of Incorporation.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?

He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.

 whembly wrote:

Erm... what's the point in this? Historically, I'm right and it wasn't until the SC incorporated those onto the States.

The point is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, restrains more than the Federal Government due to Supreme Court rulings grounded in the doctrine of Incorporation.

So thats a no, he hasn't voted to repeal the Second Amendment.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.

So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.

The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution wouldn't have passed without slavery and the 3/5th compromise, yet we still amended it to ban slavery years later.

Coincidentally, the Constitution did in fact pass without the Bill of Rights and was ratified without a Bill of Rights in 1788.

3 years later the US ratified the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and many many more after that. Constitutional law is very clear on the legality of making changes to the original constitution itself as well as any of the subsequent amendments.

please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights.

I can give you 27 examples that make it perfectly clear that it is legal to make any changes to the Constitution, and one example that makes it perfectly clear that it is legal to repeal a previous amendment.

I look forward to your posting of the section of the constitution that states "this is how you change the constitution, but not the first 10 Amendments that haven't even been written yet".

Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.

Thankfully Constitutional law does not rely on politicians supporting me. Something is legal even if nobody wants to do it.

But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.

If you want to change your argument to "it would be political suicide if politicians were to try to repeal the 2nd" then you might very well be right. And I readily admit that I don't want to see this process played out. I like my guns, thank you very much.

But if you want to make the argument that it would be illegal to change the Constitution using the process found in the Constitution to change it, then you would be very wrong.

So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.

Again, try it.

Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.

I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.

I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.

Now do you get what I am saying?

Sure... not disagreeing with you.

But, I think you're missing the Big Picture™.

The big picture, based on historical documents such as the Federalist Papers... have long referred to the 1st and 2nd Amendments as the rights of rebellion. The founding fathers believed in a moral, but not legal, right to rebel. Which seems assed-backwards, but was purposely done.

That doctrine is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

But at the same time, no government can legalize its own destruction. Right? There's no explicit "self-nuke button", just as there is no legal right to secede or rebel. It's just not workable. So one can only appeal to the moral right of rebellion if the government has become tyrannical. And the founding fathers did believe this could happen here. As Franklin quipped, "A lady asked Dr. Franklin 'Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it'."

That is...if tyranny should arise, we have the right to speak and print to warn people, to call people to arms (1st Amendment). We have the right to assemble (1st Amendment). And we have the right arm that crowd (2nd) ...

In short we have a have a right to raise an army and arm it. All of that is legal, as long as all the "i" is dotted and the "t" is crossed (not that it means we can have a nuke or illegal destructive devices).

It is simply that the moment the assembly becomes violent (remember it is a right to peaceable assembly), that it becomes illegal. In other words, preparation for rebellion is legal (strange, huh?)... but the act of rebellion is illegal and you will have to make the appeal to God, Mother Gaia or whom/whatever in the heavens for the righteousness of it as our founders did in 1776.

Now that's the "whys" we have the Bill of Rights stated in such a way... the practicality of this ever happen?

Not likely at all. Because, while there *is* a mechanism to repeal any amendments, as you opined... there's no chance in hell that'd it ever happen (as stated by frazzeled).

 Frazzled wrote:
So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.

Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.