SmarterthanYou
rebel
why do you consider it twisted? Do you think the framers of the constitution believed that this new central government they were creating would NEVER become tyrannical?
no one wants to take your guns liars
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
why do you consider it twisted? Do you think the framers of the constitution believed that this new central government they were creating would NEVER become tyrannical?
It has nothing to do with a "1775 clause in the Constitution." I think you mean 1791. That clause allows about any gun regulations that anybody would want to impose (except bans). It is because the federal and state legislatures choose not to impose more laws because the public opposes them and because of dubious value. There is no need for another amendment since the 2nd does not prohibit regulations now.
I know some posters claim there can be no infringements but the courts have never agreed with them; although, those posters somehow discover a loophole to allow infringement for felons.
The Constitution went into effect in 1788 and the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 (10 of the 12 proposed amendments).
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the courts have ignored the constitution for over 200 years now. we the people are the arbiters of what the constitution means and what it doesn't. It's also the absolute height of moronic stupidity to believe that the framers would write an amendment allowing regulation of their arms after having just won independence from a government trying to regulate their arms.
The people are not arbiters of the Constitution--that would make us a democracy and the Constitution would have no meaning if we could decide what it meant. Regardless of what the framers intended, no courts have ever ruled government could not regulate weapons and if you believe in the rule of law we follow their rulings.
Besides, that did not prevent any of the states from choosing to make any regulations about weapons since the 2nd did not even apply to the states until 2010. That is another example of the courts ignoring the Constitution since it clearly intended the Bill of Rights to restrict the federal government only, that is what the document says, and that is what the court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore. The courts twisted the 14th to change that meaning.
I'm still waiting on an explanation how you claim no one wants to take guns yet posts that 74% believe they should be kept legal. What happened to the other 26%?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
who wrote the constitution? who amends the constitution?
is this you backtracking on your previous claim of the people not deciding what the constitution means?
what do you propose we the people do when the courts are so obviously wrong?
so the courts are wrong?
The people do not decide what the Constitution means. The Constitution can be amended (but not everything) that adds to it or changes its meaning, but "the people" did not determine that without government involvement. The "people" (delegates) can only meet in a constitutional convention if 2/3 of the state legislatures call that convention; then, 3/4 of the state legislatures or conventions in 3/4 of the states must ratify.
And when you say the people do you mean a majority of the people? No, it takes 2/3 and 3/4 of the states which might represent far less than a majority of people (but is very hard to do). So, the people are not really deciding anything although they may be involved in pushing for it to happen. Congress by a 2/3 vote of each house or conventions called by 2/3 of the states must initiate the process--not the people. And the delegates selected to attend the convention might not favor the same thing as others in that state.
If we disagree with court decisions we can push for amendments, but very few Americans think the courts are "obviously wrong" when they allow government regulation of weapons. Most don't want additional regulations, but they like the background checks and many other regulations.
I did not say the courts were wrong but that they really stretched the original intent of the Constitution. I used that example to show how those who oppose any gun regulations probably favor a decision that prohibits the states from excessive regulation even though they claim they want to maintain the original meaning of the document.
If you want them gone then somebody does want to take guns away despite the title of this thread.
What people? They can't write amendments but those selected as delegates can meet in a constitutional convention and propose amendments if 2/3 of the states call for that convention.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
public education has seriously harmed most of america these days. you need to learn your history and how the constitution was ratified. we the people do indeed decide what the constitution means and we have that final power via jury nullification. that means that if we feel that the government is abusing the intent of a law in an unconstitutional way, we can nullify the governments prosecution or the courts abuse. Now, the ratification process determined that we the people told our delegates what we wanted the constitution to contain and all of the commentaries prior to and after ratification state it's meaning to us very clearly.
most americans think that the government wrote the constitution, which is most definitely wrong, so most people are also wrong about the government regulation of weapons. it's their simple mindedness that makes them think the government knows better than us.
depending upon the states constitution, they may or may not be able to regulate firearms.
again, you people have been done a serious disservice in your educations. the constitution can be amended one of two ways, but it is ALWAYS the people that decide. An amendment can be started in the house, but it can also be started by the people in the states. If 3/4ths of the states adopt, via the state legislatures who are the peoples representatives.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
Can't read? You cannot take away the guns. Cannot. I wish we could, but we cannot. No way, cannot . Are you getting the drift?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can't YOU read? there's a big difference between wanting to take away guns and being able to take away guns. we're saying that there ARE people who WANT to take away guns and if i'm not mistaken, you said you were one of them.
In the OP, evince said no one wants to take guns away yet posted that only 74% felts guns should stay legal. That leaves 26%. Norberg but be in that 26% for which evince didn't address and definitely refutes evince's claims that no one wants them gone.
You say "I wish we could" take away the guns but then claim nobody wants to take them away. I don't think my ability to read is the problem.
Русский агент
Путин - мl
Desh said nobody wants to take guns away. Desh lied.
Sorry, but your education appears to come from right-wing militia literature. There is no such thing as jury nullification although the jury can find a person not guilty if they think a law is unconstitutional. That does not nullify that law but simply finds the accused not guilty in that particular case.
You need to actually read the Constitution. There are two ways to propose and two ways to ratify and amendment. In none of them can the people decide without the involvement of the state legislatures and/or Congress. The people can lobby their states to call a constitutional convention, but the delegates to that convention will be selected by the method determined by each state. And, that convention is not held unless 2/3 of the states call for such a convention. But the people cannot start that process by themselves.
We have never proposed an amendment by constitutional convention but we did ratify the 21st through conventions.
When the U. S. Constitution was written the ratifying conventions in each state were not telling the delegates what they wanted the Constitution to contain. The document had already been written and they were simply voting whether or not to accept that document as already written. They agreed to accept it if after it was ratified if they wrote amendments prohibiting the federal government from restricting certain basic rights. Congress wrote 12 amendments and 10 were ratified in 1791 and one was not ratified until 1992.
Most Americans do not think the government wrote the Constitution. And, they think firearms can be regulated because all court decisions through the years have said they could. And, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights is absolute (except maybe the 3rd which still does not apply to the states).
Again, this is basic constitutional law--not my opinion.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
http://fija.org/
ah, I see. you're of the mindset that the people are not represented by state legislatures, but ruled over by them as they must be hereditary titles or some shit.
just more statism as instituted by an out of control and oppressive government seeking more power by terrifying the people in to thinking that rights must be regulated or anarchy would ensue. that's very sad that you sheeple fell for that.