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
-
Actually, I believe that even a Constitutional Convention cannot "revise the Constitution" as you described. That is, they cannot publish a new one where Article XX, Section YY is no longer there, and several new paragraphs are inserted at a new point. Not even if they have to send it to the states for ratification.
All A ConCon can do, is propose amendments just as Congress can with a supermajority of each house. The ConCon's role is IDENTICAL to Congress's in all ways.
So in actuality, the "amendment solution" is the ONLY way the Constitution can be modified. There are simply two ways those amendments can be proposed: By Congress, or by a ConCon. And during ratification, a state can ratify (or refuse to ratify) either by a vote of its legislature, or by a little ConCon representing only that state.0 -
All very well and good, but lets not forget that the 21st amendment REPEALED the 18th (prohibition)using the process that has been outlined here by several posters.
There could easily be an amendment proposed that would repeal the 2nd Amendment. And I would NOT be a bit surprised to find that there are people in the Democratic controled Federal Government, who are trying to lay the groundwork to do just that.
However I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing in today's political climate. A poll was reported on one of these forums, I believe that is where I saw it, that was conducted by a national news network and 97% of those polled believed that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to bear Arms. And that was conducted BEFORE the SJC ruled on Heller.
Even in the liberal state of Massachusetts, I can't believe legislators would DARE to vote for such a repeal.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
As a Vet, I took an oath to protect the Constitution. The Constitution acknowledges GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. If there is an attempt to limit my ability to defend my loved ones, well....I have risked my life before.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dsmc1
There could easily be an amendment proposed that would repeal the 2nd Amendment.That has always been true, and is just as true today.
Keep in mind, though, that if the 2nd amendment were repealed, the Fed govt STILL would have no constitutional authority to regulate firearms per se. They could restrict or prevent them from being transferred across state lines, but that's about it.
Remember that the Constitution created the Fed Govt as we have it today (well, not in the form it is today, but that's a matter for a different thread)... and GAVE IT ALL ITS POWERS. And one power not given anywhere in the Constitution (even if the 2nd' weren't there), is the power to regulate firearms. The principal of Enumerated Powers hasn't changed since 1789. It's merely been ignored or violated, but never repealed. (Banks get robbed fairly frequently, but does that mean that the laws against robbing banks no longer exist?)
quote:However I don't think it would have a snowball's chance in Hell of passing in today's political climate.
That's another thing that's been true for a very long time. As I keep saying, America is a fundamentally conservative country - one where the populace believes that individuals are sovereign and should be responsible for their own lives. There has NEVER been a time since 1789 when a majority (and certainly not the 3/4 majority required to modify the Constitution) believes we would be better off with the 2nd amendment gone.
That's why politicians have never bothered to pass a proposed Constitutional amendment in Congress, repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. They know the people would be HEAVILY against it, and would vote their tushes right out of Congress at the next election.0 -
[/quote]The ones who would try such an endeavor would be removed from Office.
[/quote]
There alot of them trying that are still there term after term.0 -
Now would be a time of fortuitous luck if the band wagon of anti-gun owners would in fact try to nullify the 2nd. Amendment.
I would like to believe it would cause many to wake up from their complacent sleep and start the tidal wave of cultural realignment, just short of a new "Tea Party" so often called for today.
Call me an optimist.[8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by mikemass
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?
I'm certain Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, et.al., were asked what they meant by "take a stand," and they were faced with the choice between compliance with King George's wishes or becoming "criminals." No doubt many people did not see going to war with Great Britain as a viable option.
New Hampshire's state motto comes to mind immediately: "Live Free or Die." It will be a difficult choice for many. During Jefferson's time, only a small percentage of the population chose freedom, while the rest bowed down to their master.0 -
Rocklobster you are right on point. Many of those in the service of King George (a.k.a. Redcoats) were actually friends and neighbors of those who were termed "patriots" by us and "criminals" by the Crown.
Many stand by and let things happen, few make things happen. Especially now, in a culture of "entitlement" as we have, many will again just stand there watching while others give their blood to quench the thirst of the tree of freedom.
USN (Ret.)
"The democracy will fail when you take from those who work and give to those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
38 comments