notice how you couldn't point out the contradiction for a 4th time in a row? Because I did, and so did everyone else reading.
Lucky you, now you can say "a 5th time in a row." However, couldn't and didn't are two different things all together.
it's hilarious watching you fumble about, completely unable to point out the contradiction you asserted.
I am only going to give you a serious moment of my time when you quit screwing around. Any way you want to spin that is up to you. I really am not interested in shucking & jiving with you.
Either point out the supposed contradictions being referred to on the part of yourself, or be reported for derailing the discussion and other violations of established forum rules.
That's a flat out lie. Did I ever say it was, no not at all, again another lie. I never broached the subject, so it is irrelevant her./ And yet another lie. I was not discussing the Constitutionally of NICS, so you are way off topic. Totally false people are quite forced to do business in gun free zones, I get the feeling you don't get out much. Yes if they placed people in danger by forcing them to disarmed and in a number of states that's already prescribed into law, in fact back in 2008 AT&T had a rule that employees could not bring firearms onto company property, myself and a group of other employees served BellSouth with a notice that we would hold the company responsible if any of where injured or killed as a result BellSouth illegally and in violation of Section 8 of the Florida Constitution by restricting our right to lawful self defense, the company backed off and eliminated the rule It's not the value of the property that matters, it's the value or the person who was robbed or injured, and yes $5 million is not a lot to ask for. It is a commonly used scale for determining if someone is eligible for financial assistance as such is is a valid tool to use for such. Another flat out lie from someone who has no clue what I do or don't support. As a Life Member since 1969 and a NRA Certified Instructor I am well aware and what the ILA does.
It must be humiliating for you to have been called out for making such a silly and demonstrably false claim. Just admit you can't provide the contradiction, and move on. No need for you to further embarrass yourself.
I am going to have to agree with Levant. This is exactly how the first 10 amendments work. They did not create any rights. They merely recognized certain pre-existing rights which the founders felt were important enough to incorporate into the national charter. But you don’t have to take my word for it. See, for example: “The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281 (1897) (Note the Court went on to say the commonly accepted exceptions to these individual rights were also accepted, and stated as an example the long-known ban on private concealed carry would be an exception to the individual RKBA) And see this case, which—while discussing how the amendments in the “Bill of Rights” were only checks upon the national government (at least pre-14th amendment incorporation) —also states the understanding that the amendments did not create rights and that none of these enumerated rights depended on codification in the national charter for their existence: “The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government….” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876). The individual RKBA pre-existed the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment did not create this right. It merely recognized it. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, then it would not abolish the right. It would merely transfer the primary protection of the right to the 9th Amendment. There may very well be a “sea” of people who doubt this. I respectfully submit they are drowning in a sea of ignorance. In any event, whether you believe the Amendment created or merely recognized a RKBA (or some third position perhaps?), I am interested in what you believe the amendment does. Would you be willing to have a discussion about what the right is and how the amendment protects the right?
It makes no difference. The Constitution includes amendments. Yes or no? Amendments can be repealed. Yes or no? And what is the purpose of pointing these things out? To demonstrate that the Constitution has fluid elements? Yes. Is this a good thing? Probably yes and it demonstrates that any such document with an amendment claiming "this amendment can never be appealed" is not worth the paper it is written on.
In theory, but not in practice. Certainly not in the highly partisan world of today where there is no cooperation to be found between the two parties, as they are consumed with loyalty to themselves, with no care about the larger issues facing the nation. Politics is nothing more than "sticking it" to the other party through whatever means possible.
The poster painted himself into a corner and is trying to make it look like it is your fault, and with each denial lays down a few more brush stokes.
I cannot agree with you more. For me, the most important questions are "when did it begin" and what purpose does it serve? It is mocking Democracy and excluding the U.S. from becoming a Democratic nation for a long time to come because it proclaims itself it to be a "leader" of Democracy when in fact it is less and less Democratic as time goes by. It is all double-speak now and reinventing definitions to strengthen (as you say) loyalty to itself. The bottom line is however that Amendments can be repealed.
The united states is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Democracy is nothing more than mob mentality operating under the guise of legitimacy. Once again, in theory, but not in practice.
Let’s see. To question 1. Yes. To question 2. Yes. To question 3 (purpose of pointing these things out) I completely disagree with the question you used to answer your own question with. I am not demonstrating the constitution has “fluid elements.” I would answer your question that you used to answer your third question with no. I do not agree the constitution has “fluid elements.” Now let me ask and answer my own questions. Can portions be changed or repealed? Yes. Does this mean the national charter is made up of “fluid elements”? Absolutely not. The founders made the decision to protect this charter—and the individual rights it ultimately recognized—from the whims of an irritated and transient simple majority. They made it purposely difficult to change this national charter by creating an amendment system which requires a super majority of both the legislature and the states—thus ensuring that any change reflects a broad consensus of we the people in favor of that change. Now we watch laws change all the time. Legislatures abolish parole, and a later majority comes in and reinstates it. Legislatures set the threshold value of stolen property to make a larceny offense a felony, and latter legislatures adjust the amount. But these are simple laws that we the people have given a legislature the power to create/ modify/ or remove. They are examples of the exercise of the power we the people gave to our legislatures when we created the governments by a written constitution. From these observations of changing laws some people assume it should be an equally simple matter to change the constitution. But it is another thing entirely to modify the power structure itself—to change the charter. That requires far more. IMO, this heightened requirement for changing the charter does not renders the charter’s elements “fluid.” References to fluidity of rights is, in my opinion, merely an expression of wanting to change or destroy a right but realizing you lack the necessary power to do so through the method the constitution provides—thus the attempt to cheapen the protection by saying it is “fluid.” And I further believe this attitude endangers all of our rights—for you cannot suggest the 2nd Amendment’s language is fluid without conceding the argument must apply to all of our recognized rights. Now to address your belief that it “makes no difference,” I respond this way: The individual RKBA pre-existed the constitution and was universally recognized by our founders. Because it was a universally recognized right at the time the Constitution was adopted, removing its enumerated protection does not destroy it. It would merely become one of the recognized yet unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. To destroy this pre-existing right you have to 1. Repeal the 2nd Amendment’s enumeration of the right and 2. Prevent the 9th amendment from recognizing and protecting this right by some explicit declaration that the RKBA is no longer something this constitution will recognize and protect. That would put the knife through the heart of the individual RKBA. And I for one am glad the bar to meet that goal was purposely set so high. At least that is my opinion of the pre-existing individual RKBA for self-defense and defense of others—as recognized in the 2nd Amendment. Feel free to agree or disagree as you wish.
Totally agree, the people who wish to modify or eliminate the Second are fools, who have no clue as to the floodgates that they are requesting to be opened will do.
That is only a title. Every nation in the world implements Democracy to some extent. Those that adhere to Democratic principles in a fundamental sense can rightfully call itself a "Democratic Nation". Other countries that call themselves "Democratic", such as the "Deutsche DEMOKRATISCHE Republik (East Germany)" and the "DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)" are using the title as a sort of disguise. But the point here is: 1. Being a "Republic" does not exclude employing Democratic principles. 2. The U.S. is an inferior Democratic nation that boasts of being a "leader" in Democracy and in so doing is using it as a disguise. This is silly. Democracy is the best form of government the world has ever known. You cannot judge Democracy by the example of pseudo-democratic principles in the U.S any more than judging Rolls Royce quality by appraising an abused wreck. Are you actually saying that there has never been an Ammendtant repealed? You are wrong.
