Gun Rights

[Skull Pilot]

lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore . Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY' Pelinore

Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed by the procedure spelled out

 

[pismoe]

lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore . Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY' Pelinore

Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed by the procedure spelled out

-------------------------------- yeah , AMENDMENT i suppose but its not just a simple waving of a wand and then removal of a RIGHT as seems to be implied . Also i do not believe that any of the Original '10 ' Bill of RIGHTS can be removed by Amendment SPilot .

 

[Skull Pilot]

lets see a link to that info that you claim in your post number 19 just above this question eh Pelinore . Lets see the LINK to where any RIGHT can be eliminated , changed or removed by 'government' if there is a Large enough 'MAJORITY' Pelinore

Any amendment to the Constitution can be changed by the procedure spelled out

-------------------------------- yeah , AMENDMENT i suppose but its not just a simple waving of a wand and then removal of a RIGHT as seems to be implied . Also i do not believe that any of the Original '10 ' Bill of RIGHTS can be removed by Amendment SPilot .

Of course they can.

Amendments can be added or repealed if the proper procedure spelled out in the Constitution is followed

Constitutional Amendment Process

 

[pismoe]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

 

[pismoe]

and then leaving the '10' Bill of Rights , can Slavery be reinstated because a majority says that Slavery can be reinstated . ---https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/13th-amendment ---

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Wrong.

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

The people have the right to challenge such measures in court, and when upheld, those measures are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[pismoe]

We all know that the Declaration of Independence (which underlies the U.S. Constitution) speaks of certain "inalienable" rights coming from the "Creator." Well...whether you believe in God or not, the point is that certain rights PRECEDE government. For example, the right to free speech, free practice of religion, and freedom to assemble ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. They PRECEDE Government, and the purpose of Government is to create a society where these inalienable right can be preserved and exercised.

Among the "inalienable" rights is the right to protect oneself and one's family, and to fight oppression - mainly by Government. It is in this spirit that the Second Amendment was articulated. In other words, the right to protect oneself - with "Arms," if necessary - is not a right that is granted by Government. It PRECEDES Government, and Government is obliged to protect that right.

So Government does not have the power to restrict the right to bear Arms without due process and good cause. Just as Government may not SILENCE someone based on the content of their speech without due process and good cause. Hence, the right to bear Arms is taken from many convicted felons, sometimes permanently and sometimes for a period of time.

But Government does not have the power, under our Constitution, to wholesale remove the right to bear Arms from large swaths of the population for trivial reasons. Or even logical reasons.

So if someone is known to have a "hot temper," or is known to get involved in bar fights, or has been heard threatening people with physical harm, or even is "a little bit crazy," these are not sufficient to take away the right to bear Arms without a very specific statute that has passed Constitutional muster, and Legal Process as applied to every individual affected by the law.

Every time we have a "mass shooting," the politicos and journalists and general do-gooders send up a hue and cry, "Why don't we PASS A LAW???" "Why don't we DO SOMETHING???"

But as we get into the nuts and bolts of passing a law or "doing something," we run into a conundrum. We can't establish a public policy that - let's say - would have prevented the most recent shooting (whatever the particulars) without impacting the rights of thousands or millions of other innocent people who pose no real measurable threat to anyone. That's why the magical "law" that would prevent these things never comes into existence.

You can look at other countries and see that they don't have the same issues with gun violence, but you can't just wish away the U.S. Constitution. Those countries were founded on different principles. It is what it is, and the laws that may be effective elsewhere would never pass Constitutional muster here. So we have to live with the fact that in a country of 330 million or more people, there will always be some crazy bastard doing what crazy people do, and there isn't much we can do to prevent it. Just consider that the number of people killed in "mass shootings" is a tiny, tiny fraction of all felonious deaths in the U.S., and we should focus our attention on the problems that CAN be solved rather than the ones that can't.

Wrong.

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

The people have the right to challenge such measures in court, and when upheld, those measures are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment.

---------------------------------- seems to me that all you are saying is that 'government' and 'courts' have STACKED the deck with prior decisions on the Second Amendment that YOU people now call established Law and Precedent Clayton .

 

[pismoe]

and the USA Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment at lower on the page in the form that is original . Check it out Clayton . --- The Bill of Rights: A Transcription ---

 

[Skull Pilot]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

It is true there is nothing I can find that says any Amendment is exempt from being changed or repealed

The fact is that the First will never be able to be repealed because any effort to repeal it will never meet the requirements

What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

 

[pismoe]

i don't see any requirements other than the whim of 2 thirds but thankyou . But if i read it right repeal of the first is possible at the whim of 2 thirds of taxpayer paid 'public servants' in 'congress who do their jobs for a pay check SPilot

 

[pismoe]

So its unlikely to be repealed but it can be done is my only point . Watch in the future as the Free Speech guarantee in the First is picked apart by 'muslims' . Its the same thing as lefties , muslims , klayton and Previous Rulings pick apart the 2nd Amendment SPilot .

 

[Pellinore]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

It is true - but the process is not simply a majority, it has to be an overwhelming majority. It would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate, then (unlike most laws) 3/4 of the States. It's intentionally super-tough to do.

 

[pismoe]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

It is true - but the process is not simply a majority, it has to be an overwhelming majority. It would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate, then (unlike most laws) 3/4 of the States. It's intentionally super-tough to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [OVERWHELMING eh ??] But thankyou for reply Pellinore but its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 1st Amendment as example . What , because a majority [of henchmen with GUNS ] say it is ok to remove Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and then that is acceptable . I say that the removal of the 1st Amendment is impossible as this First Amendment RIGHT existed before any Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS . ----------------- I of course say the same thing about the Second Amendment as the RIGHT of Self Defense and general Defense Precedes and Existed BEFORE the Constitution and Bill of Rights and is a Natural RIGHT or is GOD Given . ---------------------- and just a mention of the 13th Amendment . So by a Majority according to some people the 13th Amendment prohibiting Slavery can be done away with by a majority of States , Politicians , Government Men , kings men and Government Henchmen . ------------ that's impossible Pellinore !!

 

[pismoe]

course , I do recognize that 'kings men' armed with Guns and wearing special hats of authority can attempt or do anything they like Pellinore .

 

[Pilot1]

The U.S. adopted Prohibition through a Constitutional Amendment. Then, we repealed Prohibition through another Constitutional Amendment. It can, and has been done.

If people feel strongly enough that Private Citizens should not have the LEGAL right to Keep, and Bear Arms, then they should follow the process that instituted, and repealed Prohibition. A Constitutional Amendment.

 

[pismoe]

so the First Amendment or any of the 10 Bill of RIGHTS RIGHTS can be removed by Majority using the proper procedure . I do not believe that that is true SPilot . ------------ --- First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw ---

It is true - but the process is not simply a majority, it has to be an overwhelming majority. It would have to be approved by 2/3 of the House, then 2/3 of the Senate, then (unlike most laws) 3/4 of the States. It's intentionally super-tough to do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- thankyou for reply Pellinore but its IMPOSSIBLE to remove the 1st Amendment as example . What , because a majority [of henchmen] say it is ok to remove Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and then that is acceptable . I say that the removal is impossible as this First Amendment RIGHT existed before any Constitution or Bill of RIGHTS . ----------------- I of course say the same thing about the Second Amendment as the RIGHT of Self Defense and general Defense Precedes and Existed BEFORE the Constitution and Bill of Rights and is a Natural RIGHT or is GOD Given . ---------------------- and just a mention of the 13th Amendment . So by a Majority the 13th Amendment prohibiting Slavery can be done away with by a majority of States , Politicians , Government Men , kings men , Government Henchmen ,

 

[Pilot1]

Why is it OK for States and Cities to continue to pass more, and more restrictive gun laws, yet they are not allowed to pass laws affecting Free Speech, and the 1st Amendment? Why is the Second Amendment the only Constitutionally protected right that can be SEVERELY restricted by all levels of government?

 

[pismoe]

---------- just get an overwhelming majority that wants Slavery reinstated and we can have Slavery again eh Pellinore . --------------------------- --- Our Documents - Transcript of 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery (1865) --- eh Pellinore and Pilot ??

 

[Pilot1]

Yes, Mob Rule can re-institute Slavery. That is why we are NOT a Democracy, but a Constitutional Representative Republic, but even then, with our Democratic tendencies, bad things can, and do happen.

Someday, after generations of brainwashing, and indoctrination by the MEDIA, Education, Government, Corporate America, etc we the people may voluntarily vote to give up our legal right to keep, and bear arms. These entities keep pushing the concept that ALL GUNS ARE BAD, and can act on there own to do bad things.

 

[pismoe]

now its MOB Rule is it . The whole thread has been about Legal Process in removing RIGHTs and now its about MOB Rule . See post number 35 to see Mob Rule in action . And reinstatement of slavery would be illegal but if it happened it Might be enforced by 'gov ' men' with guns Pilot .