Changing The Constitution
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Sage 1
0
-
If it were done, as required, then we would have no choice.
Changing the Constitution however, doesn't change what are God given (or natural) rights.0 -
I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention. This has not been done since 1786, and in my opinion should not be done anytime in the foreseeable future. The Constitution has obviously been amended many times and I think this process is acceptable though overly used.
That being said I would never accept any law that says I cannot posses a firearm for defense of myself, my family, and my property.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
This would require a new Amendment. Barring that, 'government' has no authority to 'revise' the Constitution.
If they pass legislation attempting to circumvent Amendment II, then that 'law' would not be valid and I would not recognize it as such.
I expect that you pud-spanking, 'bend over and spread your cheeks' types, would be perfectly supportive of it though, huh?
el-tee 4960 -
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Would you?0 -
This is either a set up question, or an ignorant one.
If it is a set up question:
The 'Government' has already revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, and most of us chest beaters have followed the laws, though we have not accepted them.
For example, I have bought weapons through FFL's and filled out the paperwork. I have not purchased a full auto because my state does not allow them. I have a concealed carry permit, and do not carry in states that have no reciprocity agreement with my state.
My rationalization is that I am more valuable free than imprisoned. It is superficially hypocritical, but is in fact more a tolerance of the laws as compared to the acceptance of them.
If it is an ignorant question:
The 'Government' cannot revise the Constitution. The amendment process is detailed and specific. Any revision has to go through that process, which includes, if memory serves, the acceptance of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states.
If the 2nd were neutered through the Amendment process, it would be a problem. I believe in the natural right of every human being to live free, and believe that this natural right trumps the machinations of government. The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Would you?
Inquiring minds want to know.0 -
quote:That being said I would never accept any law that says I cannot posses a firearm for defense of myself, my family, and my property.
I would add..defense against tyranny as the FIRST reason.
Sorry, Sage, that you hollow chested socialist/fascists find the Constitution so restrictive and odious.
Funny..I find YOU people to be that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Would you?
By the way, good to see you back Shane. Everything ok?0 -
To late I already dont have any constitutional gun rights I live in Kali. [:(!] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Would you?
By the way, good to see you back Shane. Everything ok?
Everything is fine. I was on R&R with the family last week on the SC coastline. It's good to be back home.[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
Indeed.[;)][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
Indeed.[;)][:D]
It is all good, Shane.
The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
Indeed.[;)][:D]
It is all good, Shane.
The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]
Ah, but Don, will your 'new' wife, 'Bubba-Joe', think that you do?[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
It is all good, Shane.
The wife tells me I look good in vertical stripes.[:)]
Ah, but Don, will your 'new' wife, 'Bubba-Joe', think that you do?[:)]
I just can't paint that picture, Jeff. But thanks for framing it.0 -
Well, the way I see it is, if they do this I too will be a criminal.
Thay won't have to worry about the striped suit for me...
it won't be needed.
Lance0 -
quote:I would add..defense against tyranny as the FIRST reason
Highball, good point, but being an individualist I consider most anything the fed govt does to be an offense that should be defended against. In fact I cant remember anything in my short existence on this rock that the fed govt has done that is not tyrannical or uncontitutional.0 -
No need to change the constitution, The government is doing just fine with limiting ownership and possession, no need for them to go through the hoops of amendment when they can get what they want without a change. 0 -
First post, fingers crossed.
I would have to say that it is not unconstitutional to amend the constitution to make guns illegal. BUT, the way to go about this process is so impressively impossible that it would never, never, never happen. I mean, we saw this with prohibition and how well did that work? The entire belief of this country is based around the fact that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to defend our freedoms and change the government when they blatantly infringe upon our rights.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
nope.
it would be similar to changing the constitution to limit breathing.
my right to defend myself and my family comes from a higher authority.0 -
Nope, I would not accept it as valid. The 2nd amendment protects my GOD given right from government infringement. The government violates the constitution every day and the supreme court owes the people an apology followed by their resignations. If the government modified any of the 1st 10 amendments I would not recognize it or the government as being valid from that point forward. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
The ones who would try such an endeavor would be removed from Office.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
This is either a set up question, or an ignorant one.
If it is a set up question:
The 'Government' has already revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, and most of us chest beaters have followed the laws, though we have not accepted them.
For example, I have bought weapons through FFL's and filled out the paperwork. I have not purchased a full auto because my state does not allow them. I have a concealed carry permit, and do not carry in states that have no reciprocity agreement with my state.
My rationalization is that I am more valuable free than imprisoned. It is superficially hypocritical, but is in fact more a tolerance of the laws as compared to the acceptance of them.
If it is an ignorant question:
The 'Government' cannot revise the Constitution. The amendment process is detailed and specific. Any revision has to go through that process, which includes, if memory serves, the acceptance of the Amendment by 3/4 of the states.
If the 2nd were neutered through the Amendment process, it would be a problem. I believe in the natural right of every human being to live free, and believe that this natural right trumps the machinations of government. The problem becomes that an amended 2nd Amendment would leave no legal recourse, and I would become a criminal, but would, no doubt, be in excellent company.
Good points. I too have adhered to the various unconstitutional laws abridging our liberty, but it is because I do not feel that the time is right (yet) to lose everything, including my life, in defense of those liberties.
BTW, below is an excerpt from a website called "US Constitution Online:"
quote:There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the "Ratification Convention Page" for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])
Regardless, none of the above will be used to remove/adjust the 2nd Amendment, it will simply be ruled null and void by the Supreme Court. Perhaps then will be the time to take a stand.0 -
Rocklobster "Regardless, none of the above will be used to remove/adjust the 2nd Amendment, it will simply be ruled null and void by the Supreme Court. Perhaps then will be the time to take a stand."
What exactly do you mean by "take a stand" UNfortunately... if something has the type of support required to Amend the constitution, and/or VOID the 2nd. Regular Citizens aren't going to have much of a choice other than to comply or become criminals. I have a limited understanding of how Politics work so I could be completely wrong about this... But the popular vote does not seem to make a lick of difference to Politicians outside of Campaigning. I know that I would put my name on a petition to preserve my God Given, INalienable rights... but aside from that... I don't see going to war with the US Gov't as a viable option. So back to the root... What exactly would you propose as a method of combating these new revisions should something like this occur?0 -
When you change the Constitution or Bill of Rights you change our country from what it was created to be to what our elected and unelected officials decide they want it to be. When our leaders no longer serve the people and uphold the Constitution we have a tyranny and NOT the Constitutional Republic our Founders designed our country to be. The Declaration of Independance was very clear on what our DUTY is when our leaders no longer serve the people. 0 -
Perhaps I am wrong, but seems to me, after much reading and thought, that the act of changing the Bill of Rights by any means, would render the constitution null and void. The first ten amendments were added as absolute conditions to the ratification of the constitution. These are God given rights (with the possible exception of the 10th) guaranteed by the constitution rather than granted by it. Should anyone manage to amend the 2nd or any of the first ten, there would be no reason to obey any of government's laws as government would no longer have a right to exist. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sage1
If the government revised the Constitution to limit gun possession and ownership, would you chest beating constitutional rights people accept this new law?
Sage 1
Sage?? 1,
I don't get by here too often, so I don't know your history. However, the tone of your question, and the choice of your words lead me to conclude you have a genuine disdain for those of us who believe whole-heartedly in the Constitution and that through it, we have the greatest country/society in the history of mankind. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution was coined not only to convey to us things we CAN do, but to to articulate that which the "government" CAN'T. But to address your "question", a term I use loosely in context, were that to happen, to borrow a phrase from history, "a little revolution now and then is a good thing."0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.
Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.
As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.
When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.
But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.
Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.
As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.
When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.
But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.
I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me.
BTW, if a constitutional convention convenes, writes new constitution and it is ratified by states, would it not be changed?
Guess I don't get your post.
I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. All who would start either process would understand all is for naught without state ratification. Maybe that is why no one else felt the need to bring it up previously.
Can't help it gotta throw in a duh here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Little-Acorn
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
I could be wrong but I believe a revision of the constitution requires a constitutional convention.
Don't start on the fallacy that a Constitutional Convention can change the Constitution. It can't.
As you know, there are two ways listed in the Constitution, to change that document. One is the "normal" amendment process, which has been used many times. Both houses of Congress must approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority in each house; then the proposal goes to the states, where it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.
The other way is very similar. A Constitutional Convention takes the place of the Congress. But anything the ConCon passes, still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, or else it is null and void.
When states are ratifying a proposed amendment, a state can ratify it by favorable vote of its legislature OR the state can convene a small ConCon of its own, to provide its ratification vote.
But there is no way a Constitutional Convention can modify the Constitution by itself.
I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me.
BTW, if a constitutional convention convenes, writes new constitution and it is ratified by states, would it not be changed?
Guess I don't get your post.
I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. All who would start either process would understand all is for naught without state ratification. Maybe that is why no one else felt the need to bring it up previously.
Can't help it gotta throw in a duh here.
[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
I was refering to the processes by which constitution is changed. You were referring to part of that process.
quote:Amendments are additions to constitution for clarification, inclusion, exclusion etc. it does not revise or change the original wording. If you want to concentrate on the (irrelevant) distinction that amendments can declare parts of the Constitution null and void, while leaving those parts in the document, you are correct. (Can we have a "Duh!" here?)
quote:My point was that to change the original wording and therefore revise the constitution, a constitutional convention would be required. I also stated that I may be wrong. If so please educate me. I just did.
quote:Guess I don't get your post. I guess you don't.
quote:I think the fact that ratification is needed in both cases goes without saying. No, it does not go without saying. A surprising number of people think that a ConCon can change the Constitution on its own, unilaterally, with no state input or other check/balance required. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had to point out that a ConCon is just a minor part of the required process, and that the states can toss out anything they do without lifting a finger, by simply refusing to ratify.
Your post encouraged the (surprisingly common) view that ConCons are all-powerful. So I posted my correction.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
38 comments