First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[One Bad Pig]

But it'd take only 3/4 to remove that clause.

That would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening. I can't see a majority of states agreeing to lessen their rights; far more states would lose rights than gain them.

[Terraceth]

But it'd take only 3/4 to remove that clause.

From what I can tell, legal opinions differ as to whether that particular clause, due to its unique phrasing, could be removed without the unanimous consent of the states. I expect the question is somewhat moot, because if you could muster up enough dislike of the Senate to amend the Constitution, it would be much more likely that it be de-powered (like the House of Lords in the UK) than outright abolished. At any rate, whether or not it was an exception is irrelevant--my point was that this was the only possible exception, and every other part of the Constitution was fair game to be removed or rewritten with 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states (legislatures or conventions).

If they repealed the 2nd amendment, that still would not take away our right to bear arms. The 2nd doesn't grant that right, it just acknowledges it and says the government can't infringe on it.

As I noted, this is splitting hairs. If there was ever enough support to repeal the 2nd Amendment, there would be enough support to pass another amendment (or, more likely, as a separate section of the same amendment) that would more bluntly state that the government has the right to regulate an individual's right to bear arms. Indeed, it would be odd to not see such a thing as part of this hypothetical amendment. One could easily fulfill both requirements with an amendment worded like this:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The Congress, as well as the legislatures of the several states, shall have the power to regulate the manufacturing, usage, sale, and ownership of firearms by legislation.

This would appear to solve all possible legal problems with such an amendment.

[JimL]

The people are the citizens of the United States. No there is no age limit. I owned a shotgun when I was 12.

Felons have had their rights stripped from them when they were convicted with a fair trial.

Unless you want to try every citizen in the USA, you can't take away their rights without a fair trial.

I thought your argument was that the people have a natural right to bear arms and that that right could not be infringed, period. Are you saying now that the right is dependent on certain criteria? Who decided that, you, or was the constitution explicit on the matter?

[Sparko]

From what I can tell, legal opinions differ as to whether that particular clause, due to its unique phrasing, could be removed without the unanimous consent of the states. I expect the question is somewhat moot, because if you could muster up enough dislike of the Senate to amend the Constitution, it would be much more likely that it be de-powered (like the House of Lords in the UK) than outright abolished. At any rate, whether or not it was an exception is irrelevant--my point was that this was the only possible exception, and every other part of the Constitution was fair game to be removed or rewritten with 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states (legislatures or conventions).

As I noted, this is splitting hairs. If there was ever enough support to repeal the 2nd Amendment, there would be enough support to pass another amendment (or, more likely, as a separate section of the same amendment) that would more bluntly state that the government has the right to regulate an individual's right to bear arms. Indeed, it would be odd to not see such a thing as part of this hypothetical amendment. One could easily fulfill both requirements with an amendment worded like this:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The Congress, as well as the legislatures of the several states, shall have the power to regulate the manufacturing, usage, sale, and ownership of firearms by legislation.

This would appear to solve all possible legal problems with such an amendment.

It would not solve anything. We would still have the right to bear arms. AND it would only serve to probably start a civil war. People are NOT going to give up their guns willingly. And you know who some of the biggest supporters of the 2nd amendment are? Police. So even enforcing such a law would prove to be difficult.

It would also open the door for the government to strip away other rights too. Like freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to privacy, the right to be secure in our homes, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote. Heck they could just wipe away America altogether. Do you really think people would put up with that kind of power shift?

People would rebel at the first sign of such a thing, taking away their guns. And there are enough guns and ammo out there to make it impossible to enforce if people decided not to go along with it. Not that they could even get enough legislative support to pass such a thing in the first place.

They can't even legislate away simple illegal drugs off the street, how do you think they would remove the guns?

[Sparko]

I thought your argument was that the people have a natural right to bear arms and that that right could not be infringed, period. Are you saying now that the right is dependent on certain criteria? Who decided that, you, or was the constitution explicit on the matter?

They can be taken away on a case by case basis, after a fair trial. 5th, 6th amendment and the 14th: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Otherwise how would you even put someone in prison, JimL? That is taking away their right to freedom.

But you can't legislate away the rights of the people of the USA.

[lilpixieofterror]

Roy is mighty silent on explaining on how property owners that legally use their property are responsible for those that illegally use their property.

[Terraceth]

It would not solve anything. We would still have the right to bear arms.

Uh, no you wouldn't, as the supreme law of the land would say otherwise. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand.

AND it would only serve to probably start a civil war. People are NOT going to give up their guns willingly. And you know who some of the biggest supporters of the 2nd amendment are? Police. So even enforcing such a law would prove to be difficult.

I would assume that if there was enough public support to pass such an amendment, it would be highly implausible for a civil war to start over it.

It would also open the door for the government to strip away other rights too. Like freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to privacy, the right to be secure in our homes, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote. Heck they could just wipe away America altogether.

As noted, that door has been opened since day 1 of the Constitution when the amendment process was declared. Heck, they repealed an Amendment already. Somehow, this did not instantly lead to all other amendments being repealed.

[JimL]

They can be taken away on a case by case basis, after a fair trial. 5th, 6th amendment and the 14th: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Otherwise how would you even put someone in prison, JimL? That is taking away their right to freedom.

Of course we can take away their rights, and therefore we can regulate by law those rights we have. Scalia, one of your conservative hero's says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. That means that the right can be regulated. The amendment isn't specific on that point, but again, sometimes you need to use a little common sense.

But you can't legislate away the rights of the people of the USA.

Of course we can. We could amend the 2nd amendment today.

[Sparko]

Uh, no you wouldn't, as the supreme law of the land would say otherwise. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand.

because it is a natural right. And the founding fathers already acknowledged it as such (see my previous post with their quotes) - You can't remove a natural right with legislation. I mean they can TRY but it would be unconstitutional and nobody would obey.

I would assume that if there was enough public support to pass such an amendment, it would be highly implausible for a civil war to start over it.

Maybe. But I doubt it. You would have a lot of pissed off citizens. Citizens with guns.

As noted, that door has been opened since day 1 of the Constitution when the amendment process was declared. Heck, they repealed an Amendment already. Somehow, this did not instantly lead to all other amendments being repealed.

[Sparko]

Of course we can take away their rights, and therefore we can regulate by law those rights we have. Scalia, one of your conservative hero's says that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. That means that the right can be regulated. The amendment isn't specific on that point, but again, sometimes you need to use a little common sense.

Of course we can. We could amend the 2nd amendment today.

So if the constitution says that the right can't be infringed, how can a judge infringe upon it legally? No matter what any politician or judge says, it would be infringing and be illegal.

And even if they took away the 2nd amendment it would not take away our right to bear arms. The 2nd doesn't give us the right. It just states that we already have it and says the government can't infringe upon it. How can you not get that?

"The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

[Sparko]

For JimL and Jim:

muskets.JPG

[Terraceth]

because it is a natural right. And the founding fathers already acknowledged it as such (see my previous post with their quotes) - You can't remove a natural right with legislation.

Slaves were denied a whole host of natural rights. Are you asserting, therefore, that slavery was unconstitutional despite the fact that everyone who made the constitution, even those vehemently opposed to slavery, were in obvious agreement that it was constitutional?

I mean they can TRY but it would be unconstitutional and nobody would obey.

Something in the Constitution by definition cannot be unconstitutional.

[JimL]

So if the constitution says that the right can't be infringed, how can a judge infringe upon it legally? No matter what any politician or judge says, it would be infringing and be illegal.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Different times Sparko, different circumstances. We no longer need a well regulated civilian militia, and arms no longer consist basically of muskets. And the right to bear arms is not a natural right, it was like any other right that hadn't been outlawed, in other words it was simply a right because there was no law enacted against it.

And even if they took away the 2nd amendment it would not take away our right to bear arms. The 2nd doesn't give us the right. It just states that we already have it and says the government can't infringe upon it. How can you not get that?

"The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

Again, there is an important caveat that you tend not to mention. "A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the state." That issue no longer exists for one thing. And the other point is that there is no such thing as a natural right to bear arms, it was a right simply because it had not been made illegal, or regulated by law. If you go by your standard, then absolutely everything is a natural right.

[lilpixieofterror]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Different times Sparko, different circumstances. We no longer need a well regulated civilian militia, and arms no longer consist basically of muskets. And the right to bear arms is not a natural right, it was like any other right that hadn't been outlawed, in other words it was simply a right because there was no law enacted against it.

Again, there is an important caveat that you tend not to mention. "A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of the state." That issue no longer exists for one thing. And the other point is that there is no such thing as a natural right to bear arms, it was a right simply because it had not been made illegal, or regulated by law. If you go by your standard, then absolutely everything is a natural right.

My dear Jimmy, you are aware that you legally a member of the militia, right?

[JimL]

My dear Jimmy, you are aware that you legally a member of the militia, right?

For one thing, completely irrelevant, for another how would you know whether I'm legally a member or not? Because as is the usual case with you, you are wrong once again.