Your points are well noted. However, there was a time when excessive bullying was mitigated by a punch in the face. There were "No thank you, please!" utterances. This helped maintain social equilibrium in the school yard. Then again, there was also a concept called 'parenting'.
"Repeal The Second Amendment"
- Thread starter Scorpion520AZ
- Start date
Your points are well noted. However, there was a time when excessive bullying was mitigated by a punch in the face. There were "No thank you, please!" utterances. This helped maintain social equilibrium in the school yard. Then again, there was also a concept called 'parenting'.
The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed for the following reasons...........
Experts say there are two ways to go about it. The first process requires that any proposed amendment to the Constitution be passed by both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majorities. It would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states – or 38 of them.
The second option for repealing an amendment is to hold a Constitutional Convention. In that case, two-thirds of state legislatures would need to call for such a convention, and states would write amendments that would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
While it's theoretically possible to change the Constitution this way, "that's never happened since the Constitution was ratified," said Kevin McMahon, an expert in constitutional law and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.
That ain't never gonna happen........so relax.......
Experts say there are two ways to go about it. The first process requires that any proposed amendment to the Constitution be passed by both the House and the Senate with two-thirds majorities. It would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states – or 38 of them.
The second option for repealing an amendment is to hold a Constitutional Convention. In that case, two-thirds of state legislatures would need to call for such a convention, and states would write amendments that would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
While it's theoretically possible to change the Constitution this way, "that's never happened since the Constitution was ratified," said Kevin McMahon, an expert in constitutional law and a professor of political science at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut.
That ain't never gonna happen........so relax.......
Last edited:
You want them, come get them. 
At least he retired when he had enough sense to realize it was time to retire. Just think what we would have if he hadn't thought he needed to retire.
I agree, but they can ban semi auto weapons, over tax ammo, and make owning a gun a reason to have you on a list. They will take what they can get. For now. IMO
Exactly right. Heck, it is already happening. It's the much easier alternative route the grabbers will take.
Forget about that "number of states" and "could never happen" talk. The grabbers are wrong, but they are not stupid. They also have billions to spend and the mainstream media 100% on their side. They understand the strategy of going state-to-state to chip away at 2A, same as they have done on other issues. Take a look at what's happening in Vermont... with a formerly pro-2A governor no less.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS is refusing to hear 2A cases. Lower courts are, therefore, calling the shots. Won't matter if one old hag kicks the bucket. A couple more "Gun-Free Zone" attacks and all will be lost. Weak pro-2A pols are flipping. It's worse than I have ever seen it before in my long, sorry life.
italiansport
Member
I think we need to keep one thing in mind here and it's, to me, the most alarming aspect of Steven's opinion/statement:
During his tenure on the Supreme Court he was widely viewed as a "Moderate"! Consider that in the context with the remaining members opinions!!
Jim
During his tenure on the Supreme Court he was widely viewed as a "Moderate"! Consider that in the context with the remaining members opinions!!
Jim
I have made this point before, but it needs repeating:
The Second Amendment is the only civil right that people have sought to restrict or deny. All other civil rights have been expanded and the very same people who want to curtail our second amendment rights are the ones screaming, marching and rioting for expanding the others.
I know some will say that other rights have restrictions. All rights have restrictions, none are unfettered; however, how many marches have you seen to limit the freedom of the press. How many to deny rights to the accused, how many marches to restrict segments of the population from voting?
The second amendment is a right, a right inherent in being a citizen of the US, it was/is not given or granted by the government. People can't seem to understand that the Bill of Rights grants no rights. It simply and succinctly RECOGNIZES rights that already exist. There is no grant in them, there IS enumerated restrictions on government where these rights are concerned.
If we sit on our duffs and let the antis restrict our rights they surely will. People sit around and say that it can't happen. They are deluded. If you don't believe that it can happen please ask the six million plus victims of the Nazis. Oh, that's right.
The Second Amendment is the only civil right that people have sought to restrict or deny. All other civil rights have been expanded and the very same people who want to curtail our second amendment rights are the ones screaming, marching and rioting for expanding the others.
I know some will say that other rights have restrictions. All rights have restrictions, none are unfettered; however, how many marches have you seen to limit the freedom of the press. How many to deny rights to the accused, how many marches to restrict segments of the population from voting?
The second amendment is a right, a right inherent in being a citizen of the US, it was/is not given or granted by the government. People can't seem to understand that the Bill of Rights grants no rights. It simply and succinctly RECOGNIZES rights that already exist. There is no grant in them, there IS enumerated restrictions on government where these rights are concerned.
If we sit on our duffs and let the antis restrict our rights they surely will. People sit around and say that it can't happen. They are deluded. If you don't believe that it can happen please ask the six million plus victims of the Nazis. Oh, that's right.
exactly
You have hit the nail on the head. The way that four of the current nine Supreme Court justices interpret the Second Amendment, it does nothing very important. Those four justices would uphold any restriction on any firearms enacted by any legislative body (federal, state, or local), so long as the lawmakers can point to some minimal rationale for it. This is the hands-off judicial-review standard that is applicable to legislative enactments in general, when there is no constitutional right involved. If they get a fifth vote for that "hollow Second Amendment" doctrine, then subsequent Supreme Court rulings will differ little, in substance, from the rulings that would come down if there was no mention of a right to bear arms in the federal Bill of Rights.
Most of the federal circuit courts of appeals currently have strong majorities of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and for the most part they are applying Heller and McDonald is a very grudging and narrow fashion, when they are applying those precedents at all. They are engaged in "refuse and resist," you might say.
You have hit the nail on the head. The way that four of the current nine Supreme Court justices interpret the Second Amendment, it does nothing very important. Those four justices would uphold any restriction on any firearms enacted by any legislative body (federal, state, or local), so long as the lawmakers can point to some minimal rationale for it. This is the hands-off judicial-review standard that is applicable to legislative enactments in general, when there is no constitutional right involved. If they get a fifth vote for that "hollow Second Amendment" doctrine, then subsequent Supreme Court rulings will differ little, in substance, from the rulings that would come down if there was no mention of a right to bear arms in the federal Bill of Rights.
Most of the federal circuit courts of appeals currently have strong majorities of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and for the most part they are applying Heller and McDonald is a very grudging and narrow fashion, when they are applying those precedents at all. They are engaged in "refuse and resist," you might say.
Last edited:
BigBill
Absent Comrade
It's been said before ever wonder how many kids eat supper with the family?
Ever wonder how many parents get involved with there kids?
I was fixing every dirtbike the kids had in the neighborhood. One boy told me his dad was drunk on the couch.
I got involved with these kids. Took everyone riding. I got the scares to prove it, I broke my ribs four times chasing everyone in the woods. It was well worth putting time in with these kids.
It's time that the parents get involved with there kids too.
I had a bad feeling.....
When they were knocking down the wall, I had a bad thought that that could well be us. Basically, we compelled the Soviets to overspend while our system could take more abuse. With mounting competition in almost every business, we are become less able to meet our needs. The US is still way ahead in the economic world, but that isn't rising compared to the pace of world development. And the way we look now, we aren't going to be making big gains in the future, probably less as this 'take care of me' society takes hold. Our day may come.
When they were knocking down the wall, I had a bad thought that that could well be us. Basically, we compelled the Soviets to overspend while our system could take more abuse. With mounting competition in almost every business, we are become less able to meet our needs. The US is still way ahead in the economic world, but that isn't rising compared to the pace of world development. And the way we look now, we aren't going to be making big gains in the future, probably less as this 'take care of me' society takes hold. Our day may come.
SquarePizza
Member
Edit: I had originally pasted a post from hide that talking about legal means to undermine a higher authority as a form of non-violent civil war.
I deleted the original copy-paste that I posted here as I worried it would be too political. Here is the post that I was linking to for anyone interested: Civil War | Sniper's Hide Forum
I have learned that the proper term for such political power undermining is called Lawfare and I believe that this adequately illustrates what we are seeing in play today with lower courts being able to use their power to control a higher rule of law. Such as we are seeing with the lower courts getting to set the standard on the 2A while the SCOTUS stands hands off.
Lawfare basically seeks to tie up laws, mandates, etc with court stays, challenges and law suits and thus renders a governmental body ineffective by tying up all of their legal actions in the court systems. Which is a method in which the losing political side can use a court decision to overpower the governmental decisions of the elected bodies.
The way I see it, is that this becomes way to remove the power from the people, in that our voted-in officials become powerless to the court orders of judges in carefully selected states that hold an opposite political view that the opposing side wishes to push. This thereby removes the power of our vote, because our voted-in officials become handicapped by the courts.
So other than adding our money to the system hoping to fund lobbying groups to use the same lawfare in our advantage, I don't see a way that the American person has any remaining political power.
I deleted the original copy-paste that I posted here as I worried it would be too political. Here is the post that I was linking to for anyone interested: Civil War | Sniper's Hide Forum
I have learned that the proper term for such political power undermining is called Lawfare and I believe that this adequately illustrates what we are seeing in play today with lower courts being able to use their power to control a higher rule of law. Such as we are seeing with the lower courts getting to set the standard on the 2A while the SCOTUS stands hands off.
Lawfare basically seeks to tie up laws, mandates, etc with court stays, challenges and law suits and thus renders a governmental body ineffective by tying up all of their legal actions in the court systems. Which is a method in which the losing political side can use a court decision to overpower the governmental decisions of the elected bodies.
The way I see it, is that this becomes way to remove the power from the people, in that our voted-in officials become powerless to the court orders of judges in carefully selected states that hold an opposite political view that the opposing side wishes to push. This thereby removes the power of our vote, because our voted-in officials become handicapped by the courts.
So other than adding our money to the system hoping to fund lobbying groups to use the same lawfare in our advantage, I don't see a way that the American person has any remaining political power.
Last edited:
eliminate the bullies at the schools and in the homes.....
society MUST embrace the concept of family and home.
from DAY ONE, humans must be taught discipline, respect, harmony....
until these concepts are put in place .....the craziness will continue.....
That's just another sign......
...THAT IT AIN'T THE GUNS. It's a sick society that has itself wrapped so tightly in violence that no on can see.
...THAT IT AIN'T THE GUNS. It's a sick society that has itself wrapped so tightly in violence that no on can see.
jag312
Member
Senile old buzzard.
How many of the other amendments are appended with: "shall not be infringed"? Seems like the 2nd should have zero wiggle room, but...
cmort666
Member
Similar threads
