Making the ownership of handguns illegal

Well you can't ignore the 2nd Amendment else the government can ignore ALL the Amendments and the rest of the Constitution. And no way an Amendment to repeal the 2nd would ever pass.

 

Depends on the road, most speed limits are based in the 85th percentile at which the drivers are driving as most drivers ignore the speed limit otherwise. And back in the days of the 55 mph speed limit there was a case to be made that there were actually more accidents an injury due to people having to spend more hours driving exposing themselves to more accidents.

 

I suppose if the price was high enough people would sell them, and then make several better ones with the proceeds from materials available at Home Depot.
Everyone should be grateful that our criminal class generally only use the minimally lethal weapons available in neighborhood gun shops, or regulated ammunition and military rifles available on the same black markets that supply heroin, fentanyl and other contraband.

 

And then there the real world. The constitution has provisions to amend it. The first 10 amendments are not some super special amendments. They are no different than any of the others, and can be repealed tomorrow if a mew amendment is passed and it’s ratified by 3/4 of the states. It doesn’t matter how hard you stamp your feet. Constitutional law doesn’t care if you like it.

 

I haven't read every post in this conversation so this may be a repeat.

Indiana has voted to eliminate handgun licenses.

 

THAT is your reason why repealing or amending the 2nd Amendment is "illegal" or "unconstitutional"? Try replying to the statement you've quoted. I repeat:

Your reply gives not the slightest indication that repealing or amending the 2nd Amendment would be "illegal" or "unconstitutional". Duh?

 

Good point(s).

No doubt.

..... for example.

I think what you are saying is that when zombies begin roaming the earth "free-range" we'll have to take another look at the 2nd. amendment and maybe amend it once again. Sounds logical.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y

 

Do you know what a contradiction is? You've just made a huge one.

 

Doesn't mean they can't be.

 

Allow me to assist both of you.
The correct answer is: THEY CAN be amended and/or repealed.

 

Congratulations to me!

 

Hmm.. Tell you what. Fine any of the justification that you've written here in the Federalists papers. Find anyone of them who would, for example, allow the suspension or elimination of freedom to speak, or assemble, or petition or allow government to establish a religion. Find any example of the assumption that "shall not infringe" was deletable for the right of the citizens to defend themselves. Or that the individual lost their rights to government in searches of their private papers, or that suddenly it was no longer a right against force coercive self incrimination. You see the trend here yet? Amendments were designed as additive to, but not designed to remove the original 10 rights. And Article V clearly doesn't give you the language to otherwise overcome the bill of rights as written.

 

If your English comprehension is good enough then you can see your mistake very clearly. Apparently, it isn't ... so, you cannot.

 

Cite a founder who wrote them who would agree with you.

 

Cite a single founder who believed this. Demonstrate your work by citing the federalist that supports your position.

 

So you can't find a source huh... and this is what you're left with. Got it.

 

Don't need to. Federalist papers have no legal relevance or weight. The US constitution is perfectly clear. Article 5.

already refuted this. there is no such legal thing as "the bill of rights". They are simply the 1st 10 amendments, and are not some super special provision to the constitution. They can be repealed at any time by a subsequent amendment.

Again, basic 6th grade civics.

 

So, if, as you suggest you want to start repealing these basic rights, where does your tyranny then end?

 

Fundamental human rights cannot be amended or repealed. OTOH, the laws of human beings are written in sand.
The COTUS has been the only rather durable constitution in human history even though the courts and Congress have managed to scribble their graffiti all over it - it is still there limping along.

 

at the point of a gun of someone willing to stop me. I've never claimed the American people would stand for it. I simply corrected your serious flawed understanding of constitutional law. Every single amendment, including the first 10, can be repealed by a subsequent amendment.

 

Ultimately, all governments are of human beings - politicians, and not of laws unless politicians decide to follow the laws.
The French and Russian "revolutionaries" crafted constitutions that were similar to the COTUS and neutered them in a hurry.
It is taking longer here, but where there is a will ...

 

It is not clear to me that rahl supports repealing these basic rights.

 

I don't see where any gun control legislation would make much difference. Something happened to our society around 1970 that greatly increased mass shootings. Prior to 1970 most mass shootings were in the category of familicides, or the killer knew the victims. After 1970, mass shootings, the killer doesn't know the victims, the shootings take place in public places. A big change.

There were but 28 mass shootings between 1900-1970. 9 of those in the 1930's and 8 more in the 1940's, the Al Capone gangster era. I grew up in the 1950's where just one mass shooting occurred. That was by Puerto Rico nationalist in the Capital Building Washington D.C. All of this prior to any gun control legislation outside of one having to have a federal permit to own a machine gun passed in the 1930's.

Since 1970 we've had well over 200 mass shootings with more and more gun control legislation being passed. This leads me to believe that as a society we have developed a sickness, a sickness no one care to look for or address. Not when most think the easy fix is to outlaw guns. Outlawing guns will have no effect, that sickness, the root cause remains. The tool will change, perhaps to bombs, to knives, to arson, to whatever as long as no one gives a care as to what is causing this huge rise in mass shootings. To find out what went wrong with our society where we averaged 3 mass shootings per decade prior to 1970 to averaging 40 or so after 1970. From the shooter knowing their victims, to a shooting shooting innocent bystanders in public places.

I firmly believe those who favor more gun control legislation don't give a hoot about the root cause or finding out what went wrong with our society. They don't want to know.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990

 

The irony is that if the Left force enhanced gun control, the result will almost certainly be a MUCH higher number of "mass shootings". In their desire to crush their political opponents, they have lost touch with the reality that exists in this nation. One safeguard against their hate and spite is to have state governments refuse to enforce ANY new 2A restrictions. If Biden's handlers decide to go for it then the outcome is on them.