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.
I don't care if you can't grasp what I'm saying, but I'll make it as clear as I can.
I doesn't matter what the founder meant when they wrote anything. They're dead and have no stakes in what's happening now. We, as a society, should make changes to the constitution if we as a society feel a need for a change exists. If it can't be changed (for reference, google what 'amendment' means before you say anything so we can avoid the problem of if it can be changed), then it's not a free republic just as if we were to completely ignore it. And if you weren't reading what I was saying through conservative glasses, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.
Partisan people can't speak my language, and I should just learn to accept that, but I'm not going to stop saying what I'm saying because you refuse to hear what I'm actually saying.
Guess what, the Supreme Court does read what they wrote and use that in forming decisions. So your opinion on the subject is just that.
Until an amendment changes it, the second amendment as written is the law and those who look to have the government ignore it create a dangerous situation in which there are no limits on government.
Guess what, the Supreme Court does read what they wrote and use that in forming decisions. So your opinion on the subject is just that.
Until an amendment changes it, the second amendment as written is the law and those who look to have the government ignore it create a dangerous situation in which there are no limits on government.
The supreme court reads the constitution and determines if a law to be passed is within it's bounds. The constitution, in it's current state, is a lot bigger than just what the founding fathers think.
And even so, you're missing my point. As other posters have said, the founders lived in a radically different world. America was very different. Gun then are different than guns now, and I'm not just referring to the technology behind them. The second amendment was written for that world. It has changed. The supreme court has dealt with this particular issue already and determined what it means. They've said it arms for personal protection. But the wording of the constitution and based on the logic of the 18th century would really suggest that personal defense wasn't really the main point behind the second amendment.
Bare in mind, I haven't even really said what my opinion of the second amendment even is yet. Everyone's just assumed what I think. I do think it should be questioned, as with any law or anything.
But what I'm fighting is circular logic. The kind of logic that says you can't change the second amendment because it's in the constitution. It's the same to me as arguing that the Bible is the word of God because it says it's the word of God. That kind of thinking is unintelligent and dangerous.
No, the governmetn shouldn't ignore the constitution, and in most cases, the population should refuse to obey a law, but to think that none of these things can be changed because a group of men who lived over 200 years ago wouldn't like it is not ok. It's dangerous and we should not tolerate that sort of non-thinking. That's what I'm saying. And that's it. My original critique was purely on that issue; others have just assumed I'm saying guns are bad because I'm not talking about how much I love Jesus and bald eagles. The second amendment can be changed and should be if we as a society decide it needs to be. If we don't decide that, then obviously it should be left as is until the time comes to question it again.
To be clear: I'm saying that dismissing opinions that the founding fathers wouldn't hold is the kind of thinking that stupidly dangerous people hold. Those are the people who bring about tyrants. Not people who don't show off their love of America.
Why would we all agree to that just based that posters comment?
Congress wrote the NFA the Supreme court didn't.
Ah... We are talking about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, a law written by congress in 1934, that clearly is unconstitutional, by the very wording of the 2nd Amendment. It is an infringement, of the right of the people to keep and bare the same arms as the government.
Just think if the British had banned military grade weapons in 1775? Oh Wait....
The supreme court reads the constitution and determines if a law to be passed is within it's bounds. The constitution, in it's current state, is a lot bigger than just what the founding fathers think.
And even so, you're missing my point. As other posters have said, the founders lived in a radically different world. America was very different. Gun then are different than guns now, and I'm not just referring to the technology behind them. The second amendment was written for that world. It has changed. The supreme court has dealt with this particular issue already and determined what it means. They've said it arms for personal protection. But the wording of the constitution and based on the logic of the 18th century would really suggest that personal defense wasn't really the main point behind the second amendment.
Bare in mind, I haven't even really said what my opinion of the second amendment even is yet. Everyone's just assumed what I think. I do think it should be questioned, as with any law or anything.
But what I'm fighting is circular logic. The kind of logic that says you can't change the second amendment because it's in the constitution.
Absolutely no one says that. Everyone knows it can be amended. Saying you aren't going to be able to and you can't are two very different things. I believe you are confused.
If you want it changed, go for it. The means how to do that are clear. It's been done before but no one is arguing you can't change it.
Quote:
To be clear: I'm saying that dismissing opinions that the founding fathers wouldn't hold is the kind of thinking that stupidly dangerous people hold. Those are the people who bring about tyrants. Not people who don't show off their love of America.
So you believe that those who hold a differing opinion than yours are stupidly dangerous and don't love America.
Absolutely no one says that. Everyone knows it can be amended. Saying you aren't going to be able to and you can't are two very different things. I believe you are confused.
If you want it changed, go for it. The means how to do that are clear. It's been done before but no one is arguing you can't change it.
So you believe that those who hold a differing opinion than yours are stupidly dangerous and don't love America.
Christ.....get over yourself.
Actually... The 2nd Amendment, by its very wording is so unique, that any attempt to amend it, would be unconstitutional.
The words in a sentence have meaning in all law. "Shall not be infringed", means exactly what it says, to its fullest extent.
Now, that's not to say the government, now more powerful than the people, can't do what ever it wishes, as proven over and over as time passes.
The Federal Government has stomped on, tore up and laughed at the US Constitution since it was contracted. Power is powerful.
I don't believe he ever said that. Could you quote him?
He did know that it would be amended. He believed in what they wrote so the founders didn't make that process an easy one.
That said.....amend it. Until you do everything else is moot.
Quote:
On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.
If we did the sum total of what Jefferson suggests, then things would be far, far different than whether or not we have guns, somehow I don't think that the people who are arguing about gun control would particularly like precisely what Jefferson is espousing in this letter.
Guess what, the Supreme Court does read what they wrote and use that in forming decisions. So your opinion on the subject is just that.
Until an amendment changes it, the second amendment as written is the law and those who look to have the government ignore it create a dangerous situation in which there are no limits on government.
You were doing good up until the bolded part. Do you honestly think an armed population is the only thing holding the government back?
Actually... The 2nd Amendment, by its very wording is so unique, that any attempt to amend it, would be unconstitutional.
The words in a sentence have meaning in all law. "Shall not be infringed", means exactly what it says, to its fullest extent.
Now, that's not to say the government, now more powerful than the people, can't do what ever it wishes, as proven over and over as time passes.
The Federal Government has stomped on, tore up and laughed at the US Constitution since it was contracted. Power is powerful.
Sorry, I was wrong and I feel a little weirded out because of it.
An amendment can be passed that would change the 2nd.
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.
