For those that support banning 'assault weapns'

[JustTheFacts]

You can't amend the Bill of Rights

?
Yes you can. The constitution provides a path to changing itself and that includes the bill of rights. It has not happened for the first 10 but to claim it is not possible is ignorant of the constitution itself.

exactly right, a amendment could absolutely be passed nullifying any amendment in the COTUS, the BoR is not sacrosanct.

 

[PaulS1950]

The Bill of Rights is a statement saying that the rights are intrinsic to mankind. The Federal government is not granted the power within the constitution to change those rights and the tenth amendment reinforces that. Even the supreme court has said that the rights extend to all the states and are individual rights.

If you want ot protect your rights go here Ruger - Protect Your Rights
click on the "Take action now" link.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The Bill of Rights is a statement saying that the rights are intrinsic to mankind. The Federal government is not granted the power within the constitution to change those rights and the tenth amendment reinforces that. Even the supreme court has said that the rights extend to all the states and are individual rights.

If you want ot protect your rights go here Ruger - Protect Your Rights
click on the "Take action now" link.

and all of that becomes irrelevant if a Constitutional Amendment nullifying one of the ten amendments is passed.

ANYTHING in the COTUS can be changed via amendment. Hell we could pass an amendment to do away with the office of President if we wished.

or do you really argue that if an amendment were voted on and ratified which said in effect "the 2nd amendment to us constitution is hereby repealed and gun ownership is a privilege , not a right" that that amendment would not be law?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read it.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Article III section 2

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

READ it. The US Supreme Court has final jurisdiction in ALL cases between a citizen and the federal Government, between 2 or more States and between the States and the Federal Government.

That means if A State or a person claims a law or edict by the Federal Government is not legal ( Not Constitutional) then if the Federal Courts will hear the case and make a Judgement on it Constitutional merit. Determine whether the State or the Federal Government is right. That is EXACTLY what the Constitution says.

READ IT. And explain what it means if not that.

Interesting that this is not the line of argument in Marbury. They apparently saw it differently than you do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Bill of Rights is a statement saying that the rights are intrinsic to mankind. The Federal government is not granted the power within the constitution to change those rights and the tenth amendment reinforces that. Even the supreme court has said that the rights extend to all the states and are individual rights.

If you want ot protect your rights go here Ruger - Protect Your Rights
click on the "Take action now" link.

and all of that becomes irrelevant if a Constitutional Amendment nullifying one of the ten amendments is passed.

ANYTHING in the COTUS can be changed via amendment. Hell we could pass an amendment to do away with the office of President if we wished.

or do you really argue that if an amendment were voted on and ratified which said in effect "the 2nd amendment to us constitution is hereby repealed and gun ownership is a privilege , not a right" that that amendment would not be law?

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

XXXXXXX

 

[JustTheFacts]

The Bill of Rights is a statement saying that the rights are intrinsic to mankind. The Federal government is not granted the power within the constitution to change those rights and the tenth amendment reinforces that. Even the supreme court has said that the rights extend to all the states and are individual rights.

If you want ot protect your rights go here Ruger - Protect Your Rights
click on the "Take action now" link.

and all of that becomes irrelevant if a Constitutional Amendment nullifying one of the ten amendments is passed.

ANYTHING in the COTUS can be changed via amendment. Hell we could pass an amendment to do away with the office of President if we wished.

or do you really argue that if an amendment were voted on and ratified which said in effect "the 2nd amendment to us constitution is hereby repealed and gun ownership is a privilege , not a right" that that amendment would not be law?

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

XXXXXX.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

 

[FA_Q2]

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

 

[JustTheFacts]

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

I really don't think so. I think IF they tried to get an Amendment to repeal the 2nd, and I think you agree they won't even try that, but for the sake of argument they did, that the overwhelming number of voters would vote that down. I doubt most would remain neutral. The trend seems to be either extremely pro take the guns or extremely pro don't take my guns or I don't care about guns but don't want people taking away the rights of other people.

Very few people don't care one way or the other.

But for the sake of this argument. Let's assume it was passed. Surely you agree that it would be legal and a revolt over that would be treason?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

Never mind that the state legislatures, not the people, vote on it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

Never mind that the state legislatures, not the people, vote on it.

well of course that is one way an amendment can be passed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

Never mind that the state legislatures, not the people, vote on it.

well of course that is one way an amendment can be passed

Actually as I understand it, the last few Amendments were put to public vote in most States.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Never mind that the state legislatures, not the people, vote on it.

well of course that is one way an amendment can be passed

Actually as I understand it, the last few Amendments were put to public vote in most States.

both ways are legal and proper.

 

[BOBO]

...rifle...

Bolt-Action Rifles

Like those .223 so called assault weapons have nothing over those sweet 1000+ meter big bore sniper weapons. M14 is an okay short range "plinker", but I see the M14/M1/A as nothing but a lighter weight version of that clunky ole M1 Garand, both being 500 meter weapons @ BEST. Below is the weapon of choice for serious business in action...

File:Sgt Tanya Breed.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...like a lil muzzle blast eh? One minute of angle with an effective range of 1800 meters... At one mile these babes bring home the bacon... EVERY TIME!!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

and all of that becomes irrelevant if a Constitutional Amendment nullifying one of the ten amendments is passed.

ANYTHING in the COTUS can be changed via amendment. Hell we could pass an amendment to do away with the office of President if we wished.

or do you really argue that if an amendment were voted on and ratified which said in effect "the 2nd amendment to us constitution is hereby repealed and gun ownership is a privilege , not a right" that that amendment would not be law?

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

XXXXXX.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

Here's the rub...any action to amend the Constitution would be done by the will of less than half the people, given the division of this Nation.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.



XXXXXX.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

Here's the rub...any action to amend the Constitution would be done by the will of less than half the people, given the division of this Nation.

Well, all we can do is look at the votes. If the "other side" gets to votes in whichever way they try to amend the cotus, the their amendment is legal.

now if they just try to over rule the cotus by fiat, well that's another matter entirely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

and all of that becomes irrelevant if a Constitutional Amendment nullifying one of the ten amendments is passed.

ANYTHING in the COTUS can be changed via amendment. Hell we could pass an amendment to do away with the office of President if we wished.

or do you really argue that if an amendment were voted on and ratified which said in effect "the 2nd amendment to us constitution is hereby repealed and gun ownership is a privilege , not a right" that that amendment would not be law?

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

XXXXXX.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

Pretty sure that was you when you claimed that amending the Constitution would make any argument that rights are inherent to humanity irrelevant.

 

[PaulS1950]

There is more than enough supportive evidence from the founding fathers the the Bill of Rights was to remain untouchable by any action of the government or the people.

WordsFromTheFoundingFathers:

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
~Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
~Benjamin Franklin


"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry


A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. ~George Washington

Above is from ARF.com

 

[FA_Q2]

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

No, it would not. It is not easy to amend the constitution. In this current political climate it is essentially impossible. At no time will an amendment be ratifies with less than 5 percent of the people being behind it.

Actually, all that would do is prove that the Declaration of Independence is still relevant because it would then be the responsibility of free people to rise up and throw off their oppressors.



XXXXXX.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

Here's the rub...any action to amend the Constitution would be done by the will of less than half the people, given the division of this Nation.

No, it wouldn't. Again, you can't simply amend the constitution with the will of half the people. It won't happen because there is no amending it with half of anything. You would need 2/3 of both the house and senate and 3/5 of all the states to amend the constitution or the states can do it alone with 3/4.

You are not going to get majorities like that in the house and senate as well as in all the states with less than half of the people supporting said legislation.

We really need to stop this asinine idea that the constitution might get amended with a small majority or large minority segment. It won't happen. It takes to damn much to get an amendment passed.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I would add that, no matter what you feel about 'majority rule,' a revolt that stemmed from a proper and legal amending of the constitution would be really short lived. Amending the constitution is a real pain in the ass and on order to do so you would need wide spread support FAR in excess of 50 percent.

Actually it would take less then 5 percent. Most people would remain neutral on the issue.

No, it would not. It is not easy to amend the constitution. In this current political climate it is essentially impossible. At no time will an amendment be ratifies with less than 5 percent of the people being behind it.

But of course the DoI is still relevant. Who said it wasnt? Good luck if you should try to revolt if the people use constitutional procedure to pass an amendment you dont like. The fact that you or others would revolt in auch a scenario has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the will of the people can amend the constitution.

Here's the rub...any action to amend the Constitution would be done by the will of less than half the people, given the division of this Nation.

No, it wouldn't. Again, you can't simply amend the constitution with the will of half the people. It won't happen because there is no amending it with half of anything. You would need 2/3 of both the house and senate and 3/5 of all the states to amend the constitution or the states can do it alone with 3/4.

You are not going to get majorities like that in the house and senate as well as in all the states with less than half of the people supporting said legislation.

We really need to stop this asinine idea that the constitution might get amended with a small majority or large minority segment. It won't happen. It takes to damn much to get an amendment passed.

Exactly right. There have been 11,000 attempts to amend the COTUS, yet only 27 amendments exist, which includes the original Bill of Rights.

PolitiFact | Of 11,000 attempts to amend U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments have passed