Changing or Scraping the Constitution and Bill of Rightsw?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I never said "scrap" the 2nd Amendment. I said I would not be opposed to rewriting the 2nd Amendment to clarify what is meant by its words. But it will never happen. So we will continue to rely on the states to enact gun laws as they see fit and for citizens to bring court cases to challenge those laws, as was done in McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. And depending on which way the specific court leans, Conservative or Liberal, the decision will tend to favor one side or the other.

Who would rewrite it? It certainly wouldn't be you or any other citizen. It would be the Government and they would rewrite it to their advantage. So it's sometimes best to leave well enough alone.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I never said "scrap" the 2nd Amendment. I said I would not be opposed to rewriting the 2nd Amendment to clarify what is meant by its words. But it will never happen. So we will continue to rely on the states to enact gun laws as they see fit and for citizens to bring court cases to challenge those laws, as was done in McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. And depending on which way the specific court leans, Conservative or Liberal, the decision will tend to favor one side or the other.

And as we have all learned the hard way, Liberal Justices and Conservative Justices view the entire Constitution in different ways not just the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, especially the Liberal women on the court ( I have Sotomayor and Kagan in mind ) believe the Constitution is a so called "living document" meaning subject to change with the times in which we live and the Justices will make that decision and Conservative justices recognize that our beautiful system of government allows for the people through their Representatives to change the document not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.


The argument goes something like this. "since there were no automatic weapons in the time of writing the Constitution, how can it be applied to today's times with new weapons that didn't exist at the time of the writing? Liberals will say "for this reason, of course we have to update the Constitution periodically", while the Conservative justices say no, if there are to be changes to the Constitution, the Legislative branch shall make these changes not the justices.


Sotomayor recently remarked and I'm paraphrasing here, "that we must base our decision on what is best for the country right now". That is a complete mis-reading of the role of SC justices. What is best for the country in whose opinion, 9 people wearing robes with differing opinions that I have laid out or the people through their Representatives?


Of course with the second Amendment we have "competing interpretations", that only a well regulated militia ( what we had at the time ) shall be authorized to bear arms" and "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed".



So which is it because you can't have both! I agree that any such decision should be left up to the people, not the government.


I believe it is clear that the people should have the right to make this decision since the basic reason ( one of two actually ) to have a weapon, is the right to protect oneself FROM the government and anybody that would try to hurt you.


To use the first part, would give this right to the government "a well regulated militia", but the people already had their guns! The government asked for volunteers to form a militia and yeah, bring your weapon with you because we aren't going to give you one. A gun in every home for the purpose of protection and not depending on the government for your protection which doesn't work all that well these days.



So, which would you prefer?


And I believe the people shall also decide on restrictions such as the right to own a bazooka, perhaps a fully automatic weapon.


But "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed", speaks loudest to me and I think this right can be taken away with a Liberal Court "if we let them"..

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the second amendment is grammatical and clear

it is however written in 18th century english and uses syntax of the time that flummoxes some or maybe many who, when reading it, affix an interpretation not in accord with its meaning.

a subordinate clause precedes the main clause and each clause has a different subject

that syntax is no longer used but was in use when written

in reading the main clause, there should not be any question as it its meaning even with todays sorry state of education

just like when reading shakespeare some people need footnotes as to meaning, the second amendment likewise flummoxes some, but, when explained, hopefully obstinacy isnt the rule

as very likely there are present day speakers who refuse to acknowledge
the ever changing syntax and word use in the english language, for purposes of their own i would imagine

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Of course with the second Amendment we have "competing interpretations", that only a well regulated militia ( what we had at the time ) shall be authorized to bear arms" and "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed".



.

So nevergivesitathought wants to interpret what words or yesteryear, mean today but abors, the thought of a living constitution.

So he gets to be the final judge of the intentions of people 2050 years ago. Is that not the exact same thing these So called Liberal Judges want to do...interpret wtf the framers would have done in a modern world?

[ICU 812]

There is a process for rewriting, redefining or even abolishing the Second Amendment. Two methods are clearly set out in the Constitution.

If the Second Amendment really is that big a deal to the American public, then get the ball rolling and initiate the amendment process.

Note though, that The Constitution in general was written not to empower government, but to limit its power over citizens. Many of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights begin with the words, "Congress shall make no law . . .".

The language of Second Amendment is more starkly assertive in using the phrase, " . . .shall not be infringed.". There is no exception, exemption or modifier to that. It is not left up to the States or Congress. Moreover, the Right to, " . . .keep and bear . . ." is not granted to the people of the United Sttes, it is deemed to be preexisting.

[Lucas McCain]

I think it is a good idea to reevaluate anything from 235 years ago. But when you think about it, those men were quite wise and obviously very forward thinking and thoughtful when they wrote the constitution... they were thinking about we the people, and not like today which is donate to my campaign and I'll tell you what you want to hear so you'll vote for me.

Does anybody think that could be done now with this current freak show? I wouldn't trust any of these clowns to write a simple children's book; let alone a new constitution or even an amended one.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Who would rewrite it? It certainly wouldn't be you or any other citizen. It would be the Government and they would rewrite it to their advantage. So it's sometimes best to leave well enough alone.

The "government" is made up of people like you and I with differing political viewpoints. These days it is close to impossible to get all members of Congress to agree on anything, let alone something as important as the 2nd Amendment. It take 2/3rds of both Houses to pass an amendment and we all know that won't happen in almost all cases.

So we will continue to have states pass gun laws and citizens occasionally protest against the gun laws and millions of dollars will be spent in the courts and little will be decided.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The "government" is made up of people like you and I with differing political viewpoints. These days it is close to impossible to get all members of Congress to agree on anything, let alone something as important as the 2nd Amendment. It take 2/3rds of both Houses to pass an amendment and we all know that won't happen in almost all cases.

So we will continue to have states pass gun laws and citizens occasionally protest against the gun laws and millions of dollars will be spent in the courts and little will be decided.

Members of Government all have one thing in common they spend lots of money on the wrong things. If they concentrated on the actual problems instead of getting votes things would be a whole lot better.

[ICU 812]

So fsr, no one has endorsed a Convention of the States to make changes as that process is laid out in The Constitution.

Neither has anyone suggested that The Second Amendment be repealed or modified through the Amendment process laid out in The Constitution.

C'mon folks . . .how strongly do you believe?