The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness Debate starts at 7 PM (death, Durbin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wikipedia describes one of the debaters, Levinson, as "a prominent American liberal law professor and acknowledged expert on Constitutional law".
I have noticed that people who are described as "experts on Constitutional law", often haven't devoted much attention to what the Constitution says and why it says it. Rather, they concentrate on what various judges and others CLAIM the Constitution says, and what various case law CLAIMS the Constitution requires.
In other words, they aren't experts on Constitution law at all. They are experts on judges' verdicts and others' opinions. They are often the ones who come up with lines like, "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court tells us it says", as though the words in the Constitution itself, have no meaning.
As often as not, they are the ones trying to evade what the Constitution requires, treating that document as an obstacle rather than as a framework for building and controlling a government.
I wonder if Levinson is one of those? I haven't heard him talk much. I already know Douchewitz is.
How many illegals are in the US House of Representatives. I don't think that would pass the US Senate.
2/3 vote in both houses of Congress just to get it on the table and that is where their involvement ends. It would still have to be ratified by 38 states.
2/3 vote in both houses of Congress just to get it on the table and that is where their involvement ends. It would still have to be ratified by 38 states.
Personally I feel that the second amendment HAS outlived its life. We need a new one that expands on its scope allowing for the personal rights we now have, plus the right to form well organized militias that CAN actually legally own tanks, rpg's, that sort of thing. I do however think nuclear, biological, chemical, and nanite weapons should remain banned.
You can own tanks and rpg's.
2A is here for a reason, and will stay here for as long as we are a Constitutional Republic.
I didn't do anything, the 2/3 vote by either Congress or the states is just to get a proposal on the table. You need a 3/4 vote of the states to ratify, that's 38.
Is that really the title of the debate? Nobody with intellectual credibility would debate under that title. A better title would be, "Now that people have been divinely exorcised of their tendency to harm and control others, has the Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Outlived Its Usefulness?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
