The 2nd Amendment Was The Founding Fathers' 'Carry Permit' Right ('Constitutional Carry') Established For American Citizens

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What we don't have is the ability to keep gun criminals in jail....the democrat party keeps releasing them

This is a lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitution is erroneous and needs to be reordered

No, what is amazing is that the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court, yet far too many reject this settled, accepted case law and pursue ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘arguments’ anyway.

And because the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, the notion that the Constitution is “erroneous” or needs to be “reordered” (whatever that means) is just as ridiculous and wrongheaded.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Constitution is erroneous and needs to be reordered

No, what is amazing is that the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court, yet far too many reject this settled, accepted case law and pursue ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘arguments’ anyway.

And because the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, the notion that the Constitution is “erroneous” or needs to be “reordered” (whatever that means) is just as ridiculous and wrongheaded.

Yeah, wake up. The Supreme Court can do what you think it does and it doesn't work like it supposed to.

And you cannot figure that out, you just blame it on your neighbors being stupid - don't you?

And you are willing to keep arguing with them rather than trying to get it right the right way - peace treaty.

 

[emilynghiem]

What Liberals don't understand is

Wrong.

Liberals have a perfect understanding of the Second Amendment.

In fact, liberals support and follow Second Amendment case law, unlike conservatives.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who have nothing but unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law, particularly the idiotic, wrongheaded notion that the right is ‘unlimited.’

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
You prove the point I'm making.
1. You focus on govt regulations that you see as coming with and applying to 2A
2. The rightwing Constitutionalists see the Bill of Rights and Rights of the People as checking against abuses of the 2A so this is the rightwing equivalent of the leftwing using Govt regulation for that!

 

[2aguy]

What Liberals don't understand is

Wrong.

Liberals have a perfect understanding of the Second Amendment.

In fact, liberals support and follow Second Amendment case law, unlike conservatives.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who have nothing but unwarranted contempt for Second Amendment case law, particularly the idiotic, wrongheaded notion that the right is ‘unlimited.’

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
You prove the point I'm making.
1. You focus on govt regulations that you see as coming with and applying to 2A
2. The rightwing Constitutionalists see the Bill of Rights and Rights of the People as checking against abuses of the 2A so this is the rightwing equivalent of the leftwing using Govt regulation for that!

You shouldn't humor him...........

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd amendment only restricts the federal government

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The Second Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions as well (see, McDonald v. Chicago (2010)).

If the Second Amendment hadn’t been incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be hearing the case from New York concerning may-issue concealed weapon licensing policy.

Wrong.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do NOT apply the 2nd amendment weapons legislation restrictions to other levels of government.
They use the "Penumbra Principle" to try to figure out what individual rights may be, so that they can enforce the 14th amendment.
The principle is that if the federal government is to be restricted from infringing, then likely so should state and local legislation.
That is NOT applying the 2nd amendment, but only using the 2nd amendment as the shadow, to help discover what is casting the shadow.

The 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition on any federal weapons legislation.
The SCOTUS cases like McDonald vs Chicago do not imply an absolute prohibition on state or municipal weapons legislation.

Your willful ignorance is pathetic.

‘McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.’

McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

www.britannica.com

You are quoting an opinion of Brian Duignan, not the SCOTUS.
If you had read a little slower, you would have understood the nuance, which is that the reason for the 2nd amendment is the same reason for restrictions on state and local weapons legislation.
That is NOT the same as saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies against states or local government.
No amendment to the federal constitution can have jurisdiction over states or municipalities.

 

[Rigby5]

there is no legal basis for felons who served their sentence, to be prevented from having home defense weapons.

Yes, there is:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill…” ibid

The Supreme Court is the ultimate ‘legal basis.’

Wrong.
The federal law to ban felons from having arms was not until 1968, and the SCOTUS is often wrong.
{...
Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances.
...}
Does anyone think the Dred Scott Decision was correct?
"The ultimate legal basis" is what is going to be enforced, but is not always right and in fact often is wrong.
Just not worth an armed rebellion.
For example, clearly Prohibition was absurdly wrong and illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

It is amazing that you are all arguing about the wording and meaning of the words, and I am the only person smart enough to recognize that that means we do not agree to the Constitution. And that means the Constitution is erroneous and needs to be reordered.

Actually, I think it is pretty clear there was not supposed to be any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
I think anyone even remotely trying to argue anything else are bald faced liars.
So what I think is that people have decided the ban on federal weapons legislation was bad because it is impractical to have different gun laws in each state, so they are illegally redefining the Constitution, and they should just stop doing that.
We do not need any changes to the Constitution.
We should just stop making illegal federal laws simply because they are easier.
It is not impractical to only have state and local weapons laws.
All we have to do is get states to voluntarily use similar principles and wording.
But there should be some variation between places like AL and NY.
You do need a rifle rack in vehicles in bear country that you don't need in urban environments.

 

[Rigby5]

Nothing in the Second Amendment forbids Federal, State or Local governments from
forming, arming and regulating a militia

No one is arguing otherwise – but that’s not the issue.

Let’s use a specific example to illustrate the issue.

We have six private individuals in New York State who have declared themselves a ‘militia.’

As a consequence, they argue, they should be allowed to arm with AR 15s equipped with 30-round detachable magazines, which are illegal in New York.

Because they are a ‘militia,’ they shouldn’t be subject to the state’s law prohibiting high-capacity magazines.

That reading concerning the Second Amendment, the ‘militia,’ and such a declaration is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Wrong.
No one has to "declare" themselves to be a militia.
Militia rights are inherent to anyone protecting their own home even.
Anyone who thinks the 2nd amendment has anything to do with it is ignorant.
Rights have to exist first, and can never be created or granted by mere legislation.
Legislation is recognition, enforcement, and defense of pre-existing rights.
The right of individuals to defensive arms capable of resisting tyranny is an inherent right of any and all democratic republics.
That is what all democratic republics rely on.
So these rights must remain universal and unfettered by government corruption.
Since the police and military have these magazines, then they can not be denied average people.
You can't create a 2 tiered society in a democratic republic.

 

[BlackSand]

No one is arguing otherwise – but that’s not the issue.

Let’s use a specific example to illustrate the issue.

We have six private individuals in New York State who have declared themselves a ‘militia.’

As a consequence, they argue, they should be allowed to arm with AR 15s equipped with 30-round detachable magazines, which are illegal in New York.

Because they are a ‘militia,’ they shouldn’t be subject to the state’s law prohibiting high-capacity magazines.

That reading concerning the Second Amendment, the ‘militia,’ and such a declaration is as ignorant as it is wrong.

.

It doesn't matter if they call themselves a band of gypsies.
They can request whatever they want, they could say the State of New York is discriminating against them because they are gay.
Until they take it to the Supreme Court, New York State Law determines what they have access to in New York.

I don't give a fuck what you want to argue about with them.
New York State Law isn't the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

.​

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The words well regulated is in there as well. It allows for regulation. Only a far right wing Nazi would come up with this garbage.

Wrong.
At the time of the founders, "well regulated" mean smoothly functioning, as in a well regulated clock or regular digestion of food.
You can tell by other references in the Constitution, such as "regulating interstate commerce" refers to keeping commerce free from blockage by individual states. It did not imply any authority to create blockages of any kind.

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Also wrong.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” ibid

An individual right pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, or act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to oppose ‘tyranny.’

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports wrongheaded insurrectionist dogma – the ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy of the right.

The Second Amendment does not authorize a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully, constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because those citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to allow the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Totally wrong.
The whole point of a democratic republic is that the majority has to prevent a minority from taking over.
And that can only be done if the majority remains at least close to the same arms that any minority can obtain.
They most certainly did add that amendment specifically to ensure the destruction of any republic that were to become corrupt.
They had just fought a rebellion to be free of a government that at one time had been a republic but had become corrupt, not allowing representation.
They were well aware that ALL governments always tend to become corrupt over time, and that rebellion always becomes necessary.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 493490


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"....shall not be infringed"....PERIOD!


"With over one-third of U.S. states having adopted constitutional carry laws, it seems apropos to point out the Second Amendment was the Founding Fathers’ carry permit.

Which, by the way, is why permitless carry is called constitutional carry, as it is a return to carrying guns for self-defense based on the authority of the Bill of Rights rather than the possession of government-issued permit."



WHY have Liberals / Pro-Big Government Rule Democrats been allowed to indoctrinate Americans into believing that our freedoms of Speech, Religion, private property, and security of ourselves, homes, and possessions do NOT require government permits yet an eqaul right to own weapons DO require government permits / permissions?



"After all, those first ten amendments in the Bill of Rights protect natural rights the Founding Fathers purposely kept from being under the government’s purview. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, all protected by the First Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second, private property and security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” protected by the Third and Fourth Amendments, and so on.

Do we need a permit from the government to speak freely?
No.

Do we need a permit to practice our religion?
No.

Do we need a permit in order to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects?”
Again, the answer is no.

Yet we have been conditioned, via decades of incremental government action and establishment media blah-blah-blah, to go along with the push for a permit in order to exercise our right to bear arms for self-defense."



What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do Power-hungry, Un-Constitutional Power-Assuming / Wielding Liberal Progressive Socialist Democrats NOT understand?

"The Second Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion."



"By adopting a constitutional carry framework, states are simply returning to the view of bearing arms held by our Founding Fathers in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. This view was well presented in the masterful book, The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?, where Stephen Halbrook writes, “At the beginning of the early Republic, citizens were at liberty to peaceably carry arms outside the home in public, openly or concealed, without any restrictions. Legal commentators acclaimed the constitutional right to bear arms as the palladium of liberty of a free state.”

Hawkins: Second Amendment Was the Founding Fathers' Carry Permit

With over one-third of states adopting constitutional carry, it is apropos to note the 2nd Amendment was the Founding Fathers' carry permit.

www.breitbart.com

The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.

constitutioncenter.org

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The 2nd Amendment rights 'will not be infringed.'

Again, after just defeating tyrannical leaders who ruled over them, the Founding Fathers created rights intended to prohibit future governments from becoming so and from stripping away their rights and freedoms.

Also wrong.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” ibid

An individual right pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, or act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to oppose ‘tyranny.’

There’s nothing in Second Amendment case law that supports wrongheaded insurrectionist dogma – the ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy of the right.

The Second Amendment does not authorize a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawfully, constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of the people because those citizens incorrectly and subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to allow the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

Wrong.
Self defense is to combat crime.
Crime is the greatest need for self defense, for most people.
And there were no significant police until around 1900, so most definitely the main call on the militia would have been for armed posses to combat crime.
Second would most likely be to oppose tyranny since the founders just risked everything to fight tyranny.
Everything about the 2nd amendment implies that it was to ensure against a federal tyranny.

Of course it does not authorize a minority of citizens to overthrow a lawful government.
But clearly the intent was to ensure the majority of citizens could overthrow a government that had become unlawful.

 

[candycorn]

Its a symptom in the illness that is consuming this nation. We have a very large segment of the population--conservatives and those who call themselves conservatives--who are simply not adults. Child like fantasies of "defending liberty" with their guns. We spend about $700B a year on people who's job it is to defend that liberty. Your gun isn't needed.

But the larger problem is that we're not adult enough in this nation to really address the decay that will one day consume us. We have a constitution ill suited for today's challenges and are too paralyzed both legislatively and cerebrally to admit it. Tomorrow, if they so chose to do so, the House and Senate could pass rules that allows the bodies to approve bills with a single "yea" vote. Or, vice versa, could enact rules that would not permit passage of a bill wit ha single "nay" vote. While the likelihood that either would happen is around zero, the thought that we should codify prohibition of such a measure in our Constitution is a non-starter and would never be considered as well. Likewise for expansion of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices currently. Under no circumstances outside of political motivations would expanding the court to another whole number deliver better decisions. Yet, every so often, we have this ridiculous debate about expanding the Supreme Court to swing it one way or the other. Why? Because we're not adult enough to look at one another and just admit that we should codify it at nine justices.

Somehow, having an odd number of justices--which by a function of math that prevents a tie vote--was lost on our wisemen and wise women when it comes to the Electoral College. We have 538 electors. An even number. The possibility exists for a tie vote in the electoral college. Such a vote would set off a Rube Goldberg type of mechanism that is unknown to most Americans whereby the House would elect the President and the Senate would elect the Vice President; which in our two party system would deliver a President of one party and the Vice President of another party (if there was no third party candidate who got an electoral vote). Why is such a system in place? Because we're not adult enough to make the repair that is obvious.

Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment. Since we ratified the constitution...dozens if not hundreds of nations have been formed, born, collapsed, and reborn. Not one has looked at our 2nd Amendment and said, "yes, we definitely need one of those!" The folks on the right will come up with all sorts of imaginative reasons why based on the latest John Wayne movie they remember seeing as a kid. The reason has nothing to do with fear of people. It has to do with no hostile forces on the frontier. When our nation was founded, the frontier was dangerous and it made sense to have weapons in the hands of citizens to defend homesteads --militias--if you will. Today, the standing military in whatever form, is a convoy ride away; not a calvary train that could take a month to respond. Thus no reason to remotely consider the need for a citizen brigade. Again, some have learned this and for most--even conservatives--it makes sense. But for a large segment...the silly fantasies of all that is standing between the totalitarian state and freedom is you and your weapon is prominent. Its a child's toy.

Of course, the reflexive and stupid will say, "they want to take our guns". No. When the nearest constabulary is dozens of miles away at the County seat and you're in a rural area; it's almost criminal to not have a gun to protect your family. If not criminal...undoubtedly stupid. Just as undoubtedly stupid to think that you need an arsenal living in most places in the nation.

 

[Rigby5]

The word "regulated" means practiced, familiar, functioning, ready to go, etc.
It does not at all in any way mean controlled, restricted, registered, or in any way denied.
Since the need for an well functioning militia was more for state, municipal, or personal home defense, the federal government was simply denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The federal government is strictly prohibited from registering or restricting any firearms at all, in any way.
No lists were allowed back then, so clearly none can be allowed now either.
The last thing any democracy would ever want is for there to be a list of who are enemies should target.

All of this is moot and irrelevant given the fact that ‘militia’ no longer exist and that the Court has held that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment right as a collective right argument is dead and buried.

Likewise, the baseless notion that private armed citizens gathered together constitutes a ‘militia’ entitled to certain ‘protections’ as to how they are armed is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

All armed citizens are subject to the same local, state, and Federal laws concerning the regulation and restriction of firearms; that they might subjectively perceived themselves to be a ‘militia’ doesn’t change that fact.

While most states define the "militia" as every able bodied, adult, male, of course the perception of militia has nothing at all to do with gun laws.
Any and all federal gun laws are just totally and completely illegal.

State and local gun laws are possible, but they can not interfere with self defense, which has an inherent higher priority than any state or local gun law.

 

[Rigby5]

Its a symptom in the illness that is consuming this nation. We have a very large segment of the population--conservatives and those who call themselves conservatives--who are simply not adults. Child like fantasies of "defending liberty" with their guns. We spend about $700B a year on people who's job it is to defend that liberty. Your gun isn't needed.

But the larger problem is that we're not adult enough in this nation to really address the decay that will one day consume us. We have a constitution ill suited for today's challenges and are too paralyzed both legislatively and cerebrally to admit it. Tomorrow, if they so chose to do so, the House and Senate could pass rules that allows the bodies to approve bills with a single "yea" vote. Or, vice versa, could enact rules that would not permit passage of a bill wit ha single "nay" vote. While the likelihood that either would happen is around zero, the thought that we should codify prohibition of such a measure in our Constitution is a non-starter and would never be considered as well. Likewise for expansion of the Supreme Court. We have nine justices currently. Under no circumstances outside of political motivations would expanding the court to another whole number deliver better decisions. Yet, every so often, we have this ridiculous debate about expanding the Supreme Court to swing it one way or the other. Why? Because we're not adult enough to look at one another and just admit that we should codify it at nine justices.

Somehow, having an odd number of justices--which by a function of math that prevents a tie vote--was lost on our wisemen and wise women when it comes to the Electoral College. We have 538 electors. An even number. The possibility exists for a tie vote in the electoral college. Such a vote would set off a Rube Goldberg type of mechanism that is unknown to most Americans whereby the House would elect the President and the Senate would elect the Vice President; which in our two party system would deliver a President of one party and the Vice President of another party (if there was no third party candidate who got an electoral vote). Why is such a system in place? Because we're not adult enough to make the repair that is obvious.

Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment. Since we ratified the constitution...dozens if not hundreds of nations have been formed, born, collapsed, and reborn. Not one has looked at our 2nd Amendment and said, "yes, we definitely need one of those!" The folks on the right will come up with all sorts of imaginative reasons why based on the latest John Wayne movie they remember seeing as a kid. The reason has nothing to do with fear of people. It has to do with no hostile forces on the frontier. When our nation was founded, the frontier was dangerous and it made sense to have weapons in the hands of citizens to defend homesteads --militias--if you will. Today, the standing military in whatever form, is a convoy ride away; not a calvary train that could take a month to respond. Thus no reason to remotely consider the need for a citizen brigade. Again, some have learned this and for most--even conservatives--it makes sense. But for a large segment...the silly fantasies of all that is standing between the totalitarian state and freedom is you and your weapon is prominent. Its a child's toy.

Of course, the reflexive and stupid will say, "they want to take our guns". No. When the nearest constabulary is dozens of miles away at the County seat and you're in a rural area; it's almost criminal to not have a gun to protect your family. If not criminal...undoubtedly stupid. Just as undoubtedly stupid to think that you need an arsenal living in most places in the nation.

I disagree.
Sure we now have a standing military that can response quickly, but the whole point is we should not.
While crime is the biggest threat to individuals now, the second is government tyranny, and that is made worse by a standing army and their mobility.

And it is clear the government already has proven itself to be tyrannical.
For example, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture laws, no-knock warrants, unfair tax regulations, mandatory private health insurance, lying about Iraqi WMD, etc.
These are all obviously illegal and from a totally corrupt government that should likely have been destroyed a long time ago.

 

[Rigby5]

Constitution is erroneous and needs to be reordered

No, what is amazing is that the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment has been determined by the Supreme Court, yet far too many reject this settled, accepted case law and pursue ridiculous, wrongheaded ‘arguments’ anyway.

And because the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, the notion that the Constitution is “erroneous” or needs to be “reordered” (whatever that means) is just as ridiculous and wrongheaded.

That is silly.
Of course the SCOTUS is often wrong and is NOT the final means of determining what is right.
The SCOTUS simply is who determines what government is going to implement or enforce.
And it is only when government gets beyond our willingness to tolerate, that we have to finally decide to destroy it and start over.
Something which is bound to happen eventually.

 

[danielpalos]

Any and all federal gun laws are just totally and completely illegal.

Why do you believe that?

 

[Rigby5]

Waiting for the obligatory "the Second Amendment applied to flintlocks not weapons of war" (ignoring that private citizens owned cannons, gatling guns and warships at the time)

Or "the Second Amendment applies to the state militia which is the National Guard" (ignoring that the militia statement is explanatory not conditional, and that the National Guard did not even exist at the time)

Fortunately I wont see those posts because I think I have all of those idiots on ignore.

The 2nd is no longer needed now that we have a huge standing army.

I disagree.
I think the need for an armed citizenry was greatly increased by fact "we now have a huge standing army" that is owned, paid, and controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, and not by the poor majority.
The proof of that is how the Pentagon lied about WMD in Iraq, and yet no one was prosecuted or even sued over the massive loss of innocent life in Iraq.

Between Prohibition, Vietnam, the War on Drugs, Iraq, etc., I think we are well past the point where the frog should have jumped out of the water and brought down this evil government.
But I certainly hope I am wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

Any and all federal gun laws are just totally and completely illegal.

Why do you believe that?

The 9th and 10th amendments say the feds can only have the jurisdiction explicitly granted to them in the Constitution.
Instead, the only reference to firearms in the Constitution is the strict prohibition on any federal jurisdiction, by the 2nd amendment.
Or if we simply apply the pragmatic needs, there also is no federal need to have jurisdiction, since it is clear that people in states like Alaska have obvious firearm needs and should have different gun laws than a place like NYC.
So then gun laws clearly need to be state and local, ONLY!
The only federal gun laws needed would be over importation or interstate trafficking, where states might not have ability to deal with it themselves.
And even then, the point would be for the feds to work subordinate to local authorities.