Do You Support a Constitutional Convention?

I gave the reasoning of Scalia's quote. You are confused as to how some rights can be unlimited yet the 2A has limits. So let's explain it since you have already given quotes to Nunn, Cockrum, Cruikshank, which all show some regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. So, yea, I don't see where you are having a hard time in not understanding that the right to own arms is not absolute/inalienable/unalienable. The 1689 English Bill of Rights and even Blackstone himself tells you that your right to keep/have/own arms is only allowed by law.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.​

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cantrell.html

Why else do you think we can deny felons the ability to own firearms, which still doesn't deprive them of their 2A protections, their right to keep and bear arms, or their right to self-defence?

 

Your mistake was stating that I was wrong about something. I have never claimed your opinion wasn't true or that you were wrong, this is a discussion about the Constitution, in which you vehemently claimed the Supreme Court has no ability to interpret the Constitution, to which I said they actually do have that ability and went on to show how they do have it, hell, you even gave links backing up what I have stated.

I could care less what you majored in or what your job is, as it does not show you to be superior in knowledge in any way .

I'll ask you once again to show in what case and in what section of that case the Supreme Court seized the power to interpret the Constitution. Now I will remind you that the Constitution is "the law of the land" and the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. Your 10th Amendment link backs up everything I have stated.

Was it not you that claimed sometimes even the dissenting opinion is in fact true or is the correct one? So then how can there be a right or wrong or true or false or black and white?

 

Let's boycott this one and maybe whatever it is will leave. Some people cannot read and this one is just too damn narcissistic to hold a conversation with. It's impeding progress on the thread. Please ignore the trolls.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

The problem is the OP is a question/poll that I already answered and gave the reason for my answer so unless someone comes up with an interesting reason for his/her answer, there's not much more to discuss with regard to this topic. The discussion ran off on a tangent with the alleged power to "interpret" the Constitution by SCOTUS. That topic probably better belongs here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/proposed-constitutional-amendments.507699/

Where it has already been discussed ad nauseum and is relevant to my proposed Amendments.

 

That would make you something other than a swinging Richard. I leave it to others to speculate on the possibilities.

 

Some of the issues are that these laws that override the Constitution are harmful to the nation and it's people. It must be clarified and simplified. It was never intended to be used for one group or another.

Folks can't defend something that is confusing and overlapping. Folks can't defend something you can't interpret to cover all. They don't know what they are fighting for.

There is a need to regroup and find what we can defend. Then, it will be time to take action by upholding it's content.

 

To date it looks like 39.2% agree with you @Chester_Murphy while the overwhelming majority disagrees with you.

Looks like the overwhelming majority paid attention in 8th Grade History and 12th Grade Civics.

 

Interesting view point.

My personal view is that when you deny x-con's the right to have their own guns you are denying them the right of self defense.

2A makes no exceptions for x-cons.

While convicts are in prison they can sensibly be deprived of their right to have guns.

But once they get out they have paid their dues to society and should be returned to full status, in my view.

Not sure though if you really meant x-con's to be included as "felons".

Your writing is not too precise unfortunately.

AND you NEED an avatar. So get one.

 

As an aside, I will be very glad when Ginsberg finally croaks.

She will probably croak in her chair while she is drooling.

This will spell the symbolic end of the activist jurists on the SCOTUS, at least for now.

If Trump really is a genius and if he really did save America by getting elected, then Justice Neil Gorsuch is Trump's greatest achievement.

I hope to see one more such greatest achievement out of Trump before he is either impeached or voted out of office or retires.

 

And just what else do you imagine an A5 Convention is?

 

To what their communist and socialist teachers?

 

Federalist and states'-rights teachers.

You really did sleep through jr high and high school huh?

 

You won't get those things either if you allow any politicians to contribute to the convention.

 

just the ones we were in together

 

The 2A simply protects the peoples right to keep and bear arms, which includes the individuals right, all felons, when released, are barred from owning firearms, some felons can petition to get their ability to own a firearm re-instated. Denying a felon the right to own a firearm is not a violation of the 2A, they still have the right to bear arms and they can still defend themselves. Our right to posses weapons comes from the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which I have already explained in prior comments.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nal-convention.527775/page-11#post-1068791189

 

I do NOT support a new Constitutional Convention, because the country is in the throes of an ultra-conservative wave of mindless leadership right now, and they would be the ones calling the shots at any new Constitutional Convention. Trump and his cohorts are already doing unbelievable harm to our governmental institutions and our society overall. Having them replace or redefine our Constitution would mean the end of the America our founding fathers worked so hard and sacrificed so much to create. I oppose such insanity.

 

Despite the title, that's not what this thread is about.

So just who do you imagine wrote the option for a Convention of States into the original Constitution? Hmmmm?

 

2A says nothing about petitioning.

I know the law.

Your double-speak is nonsense.

We should follow 2A and not parse it.

We parse it in every city and state. We have violated it since the end of the Civil War.

The history comes from attempting to suppress freed slaves from having guns.

Now everywhere the slippery slope has become a vertical wall.

 

Mrs. Steiner and Mr. Boock were my history and civics teachers in high school, respectively.

They were great teachers. They each loved the Constitution.

Too bad many of you others here did not have such good teachers or did not stay awake.

 

The right of the people shall not be infringed, it says nothing about the individual.

I know the law, too.

I have no double speak, sorry.

The 2A isn't being parsed.

Government has the ability to regulate, as per the 1689 EBoR up and through our own court cases, what they can not do is disarm the populace.

 

Jeeze what a good Sophist you are !!!

So "the people" does not include "the individual".

What coconut tree did you walk under ??

 

The individual right is as allowed by law per the 1689 EBoR.

Sophist? No more than your ad populum claims.

 

There's no need for an apology, Bob0627. If anything I'm sorry for the ambiguity. I don't usually like to state where I'm from. Partially because the entire world is ideological "enemy territory" as far as I'm concerned (some countries are just nicer to live in than others). Thus I aknowledge my status as a citizen of my nation, but prefer to emotially distance myself from it in a way. I can tell you sometime later though if you wish. The answer might surprise you.

No need to apologize, Bob0627. If anything, I'm sorry for the ambiguity. I prefer not to advertise where I'm from. For me, the entire world is ideological "enemy territory" as far as I'm concerned. But I do aknowledge the fact that I am a citizen of my country, it's just that I try to emotionally distance myself from it. I can tell you more about this later if you wish.

I know to apply a degree of skepticism to anything anyone says, but I feel you've given me plenty of interesting information. I will definately read more about the U.S Constitution to try and understand it. Though I doubt I will be able to agree with it in an ideological sense.

Now I see what you meant about rights at birth. Though personally, I tend to feel that type of liberty can have it's own disadvantages when trying to establish an ideologically united society. I'll see if I can find out more about these Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

I do understand that concept regarding the First Amendment. But for me, being free from religion is bitter-sweet if I still have to share the same country with people who follow religions that teach opposing viewpoints. I'm what I suppose you could consider agnostic. I believe in the possibility of supernatural things, but not that their potential existence is explicitly relevant to our lives. Even if they were relevant, it wouldn't matter since my own opinions come before everything else. I'm curious though, as an atheist, why is it important to you that people be able to follow religions? Hypothetically, it wouldn't affect your life if every religion in the U.S. were banned.

 

It's not really important what country you're from. I came to the US from Europe as a child. I'm not much into countries because they tend to usually be divisive although I do consider myself to be an American but mostly in the ideology of the founders. I detest jingoistic terms such as "God bless America" and "America first", as well as the Pledge of Allegiance. This is no different than "Deutschland uber alles" and the Nazi salute. In fact, the Nazi salute originated from the Pledge of Allegiance.



https://forgottenhistoryblog.com/the-official-american-flag-salute-used-to-be-a-hitler-salute/

The Constitution, despite its flaws, is the only weapon we have to try to protect ourselves from the US government. Unfortunately, the flaws outweigh its ideological protections and this is why the US government is not the Constitutional Republic guaranteed by the Constitution, that has long ago been perverted into racketeering entity.

It's important that people be free to follow religions for the same reason it's important that people be free from religion. You can't have one without the other. I personally detest all organized religions because they are all scams and many have been the source for genocide and other human rights atrocities. They are simply a tool for the few to control the many, similar to governments. Unfortunately banning religion is the stuff of authoritarianism.

It's one thing to believe in a mythical creator, there's nothing wrong with that if one hasn't been indoctrinated to believe it, but it's quite another to invent a religion from such a belief. I went to religious school as a child so I know what that's all about.