Perhaps not but I am. It is my own interpretation (fluid elements) to demonstrate that the Constitution and its Amendments can be changed … amended. If you don't like the word “fluid” then that's OK. See my comment in the previous quote. So …. you have just included a wordy interpretation of your own but after all of that, the only disagreement we have is in my use of the word “fluid”. If you don't like that word you are free to choose another one. We are in agreement. Who are these “some people” you speak of? Once again, the term “fluid” is my own and I stand by my use of it. I see no reason for it to irk you. In that, you are wrong. I repeat my earlier comment “ … an amendment claiming 'this amendment can never be appealed' is not worth the paper it is written on.” It boils down to the use of the word “fluid”. I think it is a good description. You do not. You are flapping your wings when you could be gliding.
No by all means continue saying “fluid” if you want. The fact that I state my disagreement with it does not render you any less free to express it. I want to make sure you understand that you are having a discussion with me rather than with someone else. I have never suggested, and I never would suggest, that an amendment should contain language that it can never be “appealed.” In fact, there is no higher tribunal to appeal it to—unless you count a general “appeal to Heaven” which we find in religious literature. Nor have I, and nor would I, ever suggest it is appropriate to have an amendment say it can never be “repealed.” We are already in agreement that the national charter can be modified by amendment. What I am attempting to discover is whether you realize how difficult this process actually is. The term “fluid” does not irk me, but I associate the term more with changing the oil in a car than changing the constitution. Your use of this term gave me the impression that you did not fully understand how very far apart these two tasks are in level of difficulty. I just wanted to make sure you knew the difference. My view of the lack of fluidity in changing the constitution has been shaped by talking with champions of the Equal Rights Amendment and hearing them recount their decades old struggle for the change they want which has yet to happen. But by all means feel free to attempt the process of amending the RKBA out of constitutional protection altogether. I submit it would be an excellent object lesson for how “fluid” these elements are. I have been involved in the fight to protect the individual RKBA for decades, and this is not the only forum I have ever encountered on the subject. In the past I have called out people for suggesting that Congress (and Congress alone) should just remove the 2nd Amendment—or pass some law that would be the functional equivalent. I wanted to know if you could be considered as sharing this view. Back to your original reason for commenting on what I posted—questioning whether what I said really makes a difference. I gave you my explanation of why it makes a difference. I invite you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with it, and why. On a broader note….Would you be willing to discuss the nature and the scope of the RKBA? What it protects, and how the Amendment achieves this goal? I ask because we have both expressed our views on amending the constitution, and I would rather discuss the actual meaning of the existing words rather than rehash our disagreement over their level of viscosity.
I said, “it makes no difference” as it applies to the idea that the Constitution and its amendment(s) forbids (or other wording amounting to the same thing) eliminating and/or diminishing the possession of firearms and/or regarding the difficulties necessary in revamping the Consitution in the U.S. THAT is the point I want to get across. Now, I know very little of the American Constitution but apparently I do know that amendments can be added or removed (full stop) … but that seems to be a self-inflicted secret kept by the majority of gun-loving citizens. So in that respect, I know more than they. The ease or difficulty in achieving that aim is irrelevant to me and has nothing to do with the issue. THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS AMENDMENTS CAN BE AMENDED and/or REPEALED. Full stop. That is my point and I have made it a number of times despite an ignorant-borne tenacity to turn a deaf ear. Not really, no. The U.S. is a sick community and the only reason to defend the possession of firearms is based upon that condition. Simply put – Americans (through no fault of their own) find themselves to be angry and hungry dogs thrust into a ring with other angry and hungry dogs and these are just the sort of people who should not be wielding firearms. Guns + Americans = Bad. I am capable of discussing how to elevate Americans towards a point where Guns + AMERICANS = Not Bad but no one is very interested in talking about that. So ….. all attempts at coming to some sort of understanding with the problem ends up with NO GUNS + Americans = Good …. and there we are once again with the sick American part of the equation lying in the open, being exploited by gun-runners (both legal and otherwise) to perpetuate the national, murderous free-for-all which is already in progress.
It is not a blanket authority to deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property, as long as there was due process, Constitution be damned. What it means is, within the explicit authorities of the Federal Government, granted in the Constitution, before exercising those authorities, the individual has the right to due process. Otherwise, what you're suggesting, is that the Founders intended to create an all-powerful, authoritarian, government that can do absolutely anything it wishes, as long as it passed a law and then followed that law. That's an even greater, more ridiculous, misread of the Constitution than is the ever-growing authority claimed by the Commerce Clause.
Actually, he's not. You are. The only way you will discuss is if the other person has already agreed with you. As close-minded as any leftist I have ever known.
I've never heard any gun owner suggest that the 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed; your statement is most assuredly incorrect and, in my opinion, quite probably intentionally deceptive (a lie). I've also never heard any gun controller actually try to repeal it. They simply claim, as you are, that because it could be repealed that it can also be ignored. If you want to change it, change it. Unless and until you do, the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
I see. So it is your suggestion is that I am a "leftist" and consequently (if I were a leftist) that would explain my less-than-eagerness to play kindergarten games with those whose intro to every counterpoint is ... "Yeah but!" A very interesting observation from you but perhaps a bit too absurd in both the first as well as the last sentence. I've heard many. Here's a proposition for you: You send me half of yours and I'll reciprocate by sending you half of mine. A "leftist" and "a liar" too? Wow, your on-topic argumentative debate is highly motivated! And there it is despite your denial.
Excellent post, thanks for the great quotes; I'll be using those in future discussions. One point for consideration - and very many constitutionalists miss this, I think. It was never the case that the first 10 amendments only restricted the Federal Government. The entire concept of incorporation is a lie and not supported by the Constitution itself. I'll review several of them as examples but, I'm sure, you would accept that the Founders were wise enough to apply and understand the words they used. Incorporation of the First Amendment makes no sense and, in trying to incorporate it, the Government must change it without following Article V. The Amendment states that Congress shall pass no law. Its scope is clearly just the Federal Government. How can a State have a Congress? There's no mention anywhere else that might suggest a state legislature is a Congress. The First Amendment means and says exactly what it says. Congress... The Second Amendment, on the other hand, has no limitation on whether it is directed at States or the Federal Government. It applies clearly to both and has from ratification. The first phrase of the amendment explicitly joins the state interest (militia) with the federal interest, free state meaning nation in this context, and there was never doubt that it applied to the States and the Federal Government. The Third Amendment protects a right to not have to quarter soldiers in peace time - that's the time when the militia is not under federal control. That peacetime clause clearly applies to the States. In wartime, it is clear that the clause would apply to states and the Federal Government - that we can only be forced to quarter soldiers in a manner prescribed by law. No law, no quarters... But, clearly, Congress has the authority to pass a law that would cover wartime and no authority to pass a law that would cover peacetime. The list could go on. The courts have gone back and forth over the time of our Nation's existence but the point is that neither the Federal District Courts nor the Supreme Court can "incorporate" an amendment to the States. They either applied from ratification or they do not apply until ratification of a change to the Constitution. All of the court cases only offer the opinions of a court as to whether or not an amendment has always applied or has not always applied. Incorporation is primarily argued on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is an absurd argument in that it attempts to make a connection between due process and only some of the first eight amendments. In fact, it is this argument that is key to the selective incorporation doctrine - yet it must selectively apply due process in order to pick and choose what is due process. Alternatively, some argue that it is the Privileges and Immunities Clause that supports incorporation. This concept is flawed also. It is similar to the view the Founders held about the 10th Amendment - completely redundant. If the Constitution defines a privilege or immunity in the Bill of Rights, it automatically applies - the right to a fair trial, for instance. The Constitution already defined the right; the 14th amendment requiring that the States follow the Constitution is redundant. The 10th Amendment corollary is that if a power is not explicitly given to the Federal Government by the Constitution that created the Federal Government, and is not specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the States, must surely be held by the States, limited potentially only by the constitution of the various states, whether or not there's a 10th Amendment. Madison, who fought for the 10th Amendment, accepting that it was redundant, but believing there was value in restating the principle. Same thing, in regards to the Bill of Rights, would apply to the 14th Amendment - interesting but redundant.
Well, let's look at some. You admit, or at least refuse to argue otherwise, that the NICS system is unconstitutional and yet your proposed compromises are heavily dependent on the NICS system. You refuse to respond to my argument that it is unconstitutional to require a background check for voting or for free speech, yet you defend having one for the right to keep and bear arms. If you argued that the government had the right to require a background check for voting or speaking, I would admit that we're just on extreme opposites of opinion of the meaning and intent in the Constitution but since you implicitly acknowledge that such checks would not be constitutional for voting or free speech, and you support such a requirement for gun owners, then you clearly understand the difference and that your proposal is unconstitutional. Or how about this one that you said: This is completely unconstitutional. You either do not understand the Constitution or you do not support it. Either way, what I said is not a flat out lie. If there's an intentional deception, it is in your claim to support the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment. When this diversion started, I explicitly credited you with good intentions but ignorance on the actual arguments for the right to keep and bear arms: "I've been liking a lot of your recent posts in this thread; I think you have good intentions but you really need to dig deeper in your understanding of gun control law and the Constitution because this post shows significant ignorance". I offered you the logic and the correct stance but you insist on ignoring the truth, creating your own facts, and defending your anti-gun positions while claiming to defend the right to keep and bear arms. You could have learned something from this discussion or you could argue unconstitutional, anti-gun, compromises from the left. You chose the latter option so I must assume you're on that side. If you don't think it's constitutional then why is it integral to your compromise plan? You claim you support the Constitution and yet your proposal violates it - or will you now say that the NICS is constitutional? You can't have it both ways, Either you must admit that your proposal is not constitutional or you must argue that NICS, and other background checks for any other right, are constitutional. Of course it's relevant. You're proposing a tax and license to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. It is clear that I believe that to be unconstitutional, as have the Courts including the Supreme Court in every case except guns. If you think it is constitutional then defend why the same process could not apply to voting or free speech? If rights can be taxed, they can be taxed. Your different application of right and wrong prove your intellectual dishonesty. If you argued that a tax on any right was constitutional then we might just be two people who disagree but when you choose the facts just to suit you then that speaks more about your intent and your honesty. Prove me wrong by learning the truth and the history. Learn the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders. Understand that there's no end to compromise and everything you suggest would only be the next steps, not the last steps. But your proposal completely depends on the NICS. So you're suggesting that the constitutionality of your proposal is way off topic. I'm not actually discussing the constitutionality of the NICS, I'm discussing the constitutionality of your compromise proposal. NICS is not the only unconstitutional piece of it. I've also pointed out free speech, powers of Congress, cruel and unusual punishment, and many other issues with your proposal. It is not even close to constitutional and anyone who supports it is either completely ignorant of the constitution (my first assumption about you) or, if they just keep defending it and ignore the facts, then they are simply anti-constitutional (which is what I'm starting to wonder about you). Tell me a single gun-free zone where you are forced to do business. Tell one example where that's prescribed into law. And if it is then why are you proposing it in your compromise. I will say good for you for standing up for your right to self-defense and convincing your employer. But it wasn't done by law. In Oklahoma, and later in Texas, there was a law passed to prohibit employers from preventing people from having guns in their cars in employer owned parking lots. Several employers sued and, in the end, lost in the courts. That didn't make them accountable or eliminate their ability to have gun free zones in the office. It simply was ruled that if they allow people to have their cars on company property then those people could have whatever is legally able to be carried in their cars, too. It wasn't the employers business what was in my car. They could ban the cars altogether but they can't ban cars with blue diamond-tuck upholstery... or anything else legal within the private vehicle of an employee. Filing a claim against insurance for more than actual loss is a felony. Again, what's the point of insurance beyond the value of the property? What you're suggesting is Obama-Care for property owners... Government forced insurance, paid to private companies, that you don't need. Maybe you work for an insurance company? Once again, I gave you credit for well-intentioned ignorance but you're even still defending your unconstitutional proposals and even denying that they are unconstitutional. Your words are my clue of what you support or don't support. Once again (again), demonstrate what it is that you support by learning about the right to keep and bear arms and defend it. Right now you're arguing for the same things that many on the left are arguing. Ignorance is OK but refusal to hear, to read, to learn, is not. 1969. That explains it. That is definitely the FUDD era. But it doesn't excuse your ignorance. Your ignorance is by choice. You no longer even get the benefit of assumption of good intentions. You stand against the right to keep and bear arms.
There what is? That's the Constitution. If you want to infringe, change the Constitution. No one says it can't be done. Quit talking about it and do it. But even in the words of the Constitution, if you repeal the 2nd Amendment, that might allow you to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms..... not remove it, not strip it, not eliminate it, but infringe on it. So, if you want to infringe, quit whining and get to work.
There is no need to shout, my friend. You and I were agreeing the Constitution can be amended. I just wanted you to understand a simple concept which I had previously taken as self-evident—the difficulty of achieving a task has some slight relevance to whether the task can actually be accomplished. In any event this has been an admirable diversion from the reason why I first commented in this thread—your lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights. Levant told you that should the amendment being repealed the RKBA still exists. You took issue with Levant’s statement. You claimed “that’s not how amendments work.” I merely posted actual SCOTUS case law showing you are absolutely wrong and Levant is correct. All you had to do was acknowledge that you did not know what you were talking about. Instead, we go down this fluid elements diversion where you argue there must be some significance to the fact that the constitution can be amended—and so on. I should have just given you a simple question at the end of my first post: Do you acknowledge that Levant was correct and you did not know what you were talking about? I completely agree with your self-assessment. I, too, share this knowledge of my constitution. Really. And what evidence provides the foundation that this is a “self-inflicted secret” kept by a “majority” of “gun-loving citizens”? I do not doubt that you feel you have far more wisdom and understanding than a “majority of gun-loving citizens.” I see. You believe that when claiming a task is possible, the difficulty of the process—and the challenges it presents—are irrelevant to the claim that it is possible to do so. I respectfully suggest that merely repeating your logic is sufficient to refute it. Again, I do not doubt your own belief in yourself and your ability to consider a refusal to accept your wisdom as a sign of ignorance. It is an invariable trait in mankind to believe what we want to believe—sometimes we find people who hold so fast to this trait that they are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary. I see. We dirty Americans are simply hungry and angry dogs. But you take pity upon us lesser beings because—somehow—you have decided its not our fault. How very kind you. It must be maddening to have all this superior knowledge—all this wonderful wisdom that escapes us dogs, and to find no one worthy of understanding it. The frustration of being a savior scorned must be nigh unbearable. (I’m sorry, but your condescension “triggered” my sarcasm. Please forgive this hungry and angry dog. I need to go find a safe space now….)
First of all that it is a contradiction and secondly you think that I should change YOUR constitution? That would not be an infringement.
Is that response meant for someone else? Within context? Most definitely. That goes without saying and I have no reason to feign concern. However, your use of “lesser beings” is from your own imagination. I never said it, I never implied it, nor can you find a crevice in my previous post in which to insert it with a sledge hammer. Another very typical reply to the subject of coming to grips with the core of gun violence in the U.S. I stated it - “no one is very interested in talking about that” - and before the ink is dry …. you've proved my case. I would like for the record to show that you are completely side-stepping the fundamental subject on the causes of gun violence in the U.S. I think it is safe to conclude that yours is an agenda because although you tried your best to sound sincere in your last two posts you now forego all pretences of earnest endeavour and have reverted to absurd fantasy and name-calling …. with a heaping spoonful of “Woe is me, the victim”.
I didn't realize you weren't an American. I suppose the question is, if you're not willing to change it and have no interest in it then why should you mention it at all? Can you share with us just what is the cause of gun violence in the United States?[/QUOTE]
Well, it's not very descriptive but about 6 posts back there was something about Americans being dogs and dogs+guns=bad... If you have nothing better to offer than hatred for Americans that's not much to debate. Since we'll always be dogs in your eyes, just how would you propose to get to dogs+guns = good?
Some people call it selective reading, I call it selctive, voluntary ignorance. If you haven't read what I actually said then it isn't smart to make comment on it.
I'm not going to go read your history of posts to find out how smart you are. If you want to tell us the cause of gun violence in America, you're free to do so. I'm curious, though. In Swedish forums, are there Americans there calling Swedes dogs? I seriously doubt it. So is that because Swedes are so much better than us and we just have no reason to hate Swedes the way you hate Americans? Or is it because Americans are better than that and don't feel any need to go search out people we hate just so we can tell them we hate them? In fact, I would argue that Americans are far less hateful and far more tolerant than you but I hope that you're not representative of your countrymen.
This a virtual depiction of my contributions to this thread as seen through your eyes. But you honestly think that you are capable of discussing the subject with me.
Bull, you have a terrible lack of comprehension and read into statements words that where never posted, that's called lying. Again you have a terrible lack of comprehension and read into statements words that where never posted, that's called lying. And again you have a terrible lack of comprehension and read into statements words that where never posted, that's called lying. I never posted any such thing again you have a terrible lack of comprehension and read into statements words that where never posted, that's called lying. Poubd sand you have offered nothing other to twist words into something you totally misread. You lack the authority to tell me what I must argue. Again more lies, I iaver posted such a statement. No need to prove you wrong, you have done a fine job of doing that all by yourself. So what, I don't give a damn, for all I care and you can stand over in the corner and discuss the Constitution all by yourself, but not with me, as you are clueless argumentative and a flat out lair, who pull words out of somewhere and then tries to claim others made the statements. Every school in Broward County. Once again totally incorrect and badly misinformed, in Florida employers can be held liable and sued for injuries by policies that prevent their employees from exercising their right to lawful self defense as allowed by the Constitution of the State of Florida. Maybe spend less time making up words what about others have posted and get a clue. I guess you flunked geography or you would know, Oklahoma and Texas are not in Florida, maybe you need to buy a map? I already answered that question and I don't repeat myself just because someone else lacks the necessary reading comprehension to figure out what I posted. Once again, I gave you credit for well-intentioned ignorance but you're even still defending your unconstitutional proposals and even denying that they are unconstitutional. Your words are my clue of what you support or don't support. Once again (again), demonstrate what it is that you support by learning about the right to keep and bear arms and defend it. Right now you're arguing for the same things that many on the left are arguing. Ignorance is OK but refusal to hear, to read, to learn, is not. Keep up the lies maybe someday someone will believe you, but it ain't happening soon, none the less you have clearly proven yourself not worthy of another single answer and if you continue this harassment you will be reported to the moderators.
Totally false, a lot of people in the U.S. are searching for ways to reduce all forms of violence in this country, but too many of them trip on their shoelaces with the demands of a too shortsighted and sure to fail solution, that being banning guns. Until people in this country, get off the anti-gun bandwagon and accept the problem needs to solved at the source, that being people who are prone to committing violent acts, the problem will continue forever. Violence is a cancer and cancer has never been cured by treating the symptoms, and when it comes to violence, gun control is treating the symptom, not the disease. And by the way when it comes to solving violence, Swedes are not in a position to tell us how to solve our problems, seems in Sweden it literally isn't safe for young girls to walk the streets without ending up being groomed by the Muslims you all have welcomed into your country. Maybe before you come here and tell us how to get our house in order you fix yours up first. Deal, now go home and start sweeping up your own trash .
We know that but the people on the left still haven't and continued to get played like fiddles by the GCA's, sad but true.
