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.
The only amendment, that is protected by its very wording, to never ever be altered or eliminated from the US Constitution.
People that do not understand law. Words mean everything in law, when they start yelling the 2nd amendment can be amended and the Supreme Court is now our creators, as GOD.
Shall not be infringed. Means just that. An Amendment would be an infringement, of individual rights.
I would agree with you, then I did study law with Rolando del Carmen, who does not agree in the assumed interpretation. Now, my not being a a practicing attorney and him being a professor of law, who would you assume has the better understanding? I have argued this over with him many times.
Rolando del Carmen
Distinguished Professor
J.S.D. Doctor of the Science of Law, University of Illinois (1970)
LL.M. Master of Laws, University of California-Berkeley (1967)
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
there it is..........you may not like it.......but there it is.
It will take a whole lot of word salad to get around that.
Laws are created by man.
Our rights are not created by man, for man to arbitrate.
Laws are what government chains down the people with.The Constitution is what the people chain down the government with.
The supreme court is the federal government, that we chained with the constitution, in the Bill of Rights. Those very chains on government at all levels, protecting our god given rights, have been broken many times over, with the supreme courts blessing. A man or woman in a black robe getting paid by the US Treasury, will never determine my rights. Only the barrel of a gun does that. And the entire reason the 2nd amendment protects freedom & liberty for all. Not just the chosen.
Actually, no place in the constitution does the document grant authority to the SCOTUS to decide constitutionality. That power was grabbed by the SCOTUS in Marbury v Madison.
Heller vs. DC was not as sweeping as you describe. The decision applies to Washington DC and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends to the states, who can pass their own laws.
The constitution chains the government. The 10th amendment(state control) has no authority over the 2nd amendment that clearly states, the people, not the states.
It(the 10th) states if it is not mentioned, it is then up to the states. Well, it is mentioned, specifically and to the point.
So what happens when wars are lost? Is it because one side wasn't armed?
Lots of things "can" happen. I do not have the crystal ball you possess.
Lots of things can be the cause of a lost war. The war has to be fought to see the weakness. You that are unarmed, will be the weakest link and easily eliminated from the genepool.
Our founders, signers of the Constitution and those that fought in the revolution to free us from a tyrannical government, used what is now called the 2nd amendment to fight tyranny.
Just allowing a government to exist, the founders knew full well power is addicting and the government would eventually try to break the Bill of Rights to enslave the people once again.
The very thing that made our freedom from tyranny happen was also place strategically and worded so it could never be removed, into the document to preserve it, meaning an overbearing tyrannical government could die by the peoples arms, as easy as the people, who are free, allow government to exist.
That is the reason any law that involves arms, is unconstitutional... PERIOD.
Government has no say in the arms we make, distribute, keep or carry, unless their goal and intent is oppressive enslavement of the people by trashing the Constitution.
Sorry, if "any law that involves arms, is unconstitutional," then a law baring an individual from owning a 50mm anti-aircraft gun; a machine gun or a grenade, would be unconstitutional -- but they aren't -- and laws baring them have a long-standing history of being affirmed by the courts.
Oh, while you are ranting about "oppressive enslavement of the people," note that those revered founding fathers believed in oppressive enslavement of people -- as long as they weren't white.
I would agree with you, then I did study law with Rolando del Carmen, who does not agree in the assumed interpretation. Now, my not being a a practicing attorney and him being a professor of law, who would you assume has the better understanding? I have argued this over with him many times.
Rolando del Carmen
Distinguished Professor
J.S.D. Doctor of the Science of Law, University of Illinois (1970)
LL.M. Master of Laws, University of California-Berkeley (1967)
Nice bio bro. Many here don't think, Shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed, with a period after that. They see, shall not be infringed, except for............
Sorry, if "any law that involves arms, is unconstitutional," then a law baring an individual from owning a 50mm anti-aircraft gun; a machine gun or a grenade, would be unconstitutional -- but they aren't -- and laws baring them have a long-standing history of being affirmed by the courts.
Oh, while you are ranting about "oppressive enslavement of the people," note that those revered founding fathers believed in oppressive enslavement of people -- as long as they weren't white.
Is it an infringement to arms, that the government regulates it? The very government we told you shall not infringe on arms the people keep and bear?
Define "arms" for us all and you will answer your own silly question.
Nuclear armament
Biological arms.
The 2nd amendment is not as specific as you wish it were.
Freedom is a very scary deal, ain't it.
Not for the weak stomach.
I think there is a way around the 2nd amendment. Just keep professing it verbally, meanwhile not honoring it in action.
People in American society are very speech driven. Politicians will screw the public over repeatedly, but come election time, say some nice things and all is forgotten. Same seems to apply.
Just keep saying "Oh yes, we love the 2nd amendment and honor it" - meanwhile erode it slowly over time and nobody can do anything about it. All the revolution talk is crap. People are too addicted to Facebook and Starbucks to be revolutionaries. The ones that aren't and have actually broken free, well, they're too few in number that they don't stand a chance. Disrupt modern electricity and the flow of goods via the trucking industry and I guarantee even a lot of those who talk hard will fold. It's unfortunate, but it's modern society. We're not real men or real women anymore. We even got people in a standoff asking for snacks.
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.