Guns, Guns Guns

Wow, the amount of mindless, well indoctrinated hatred and fundamentalism is just staggering.

So your conventions guide your governments in what rights are important to the current crop of citizens. Your government acts to grant those rights in balance with other rights desired by your citizens. The opposite is true for the US. Current conventions for us guide our government in which rights they can most easily infringe upon. The more government takes onto itself, the less liberty each citizens has to act in pursuit of their happiness.

You actually believe that is an existing difference... How amusingly sad.

gcomeau wrote:The founders opened all of it to repeal, with the constitutional process. I'm stumped how you think it isn't already all opened up to repeal...

Never said I didn't, legally - I know how the process works.

gcomeau wrote: that will somehow change if anyone does something about the 2nd...

Because it will, they are only subject to change if the American people say they are. As long as the American people say they aren't then they aren't - that's what the recall process is for.

gcomeau wrote:They're called amendments for a reason. Whatever the motivations of the people who passed them they knew they could have screwed some of them up, or some of them could have been rendered irrelevant or even harmful by changing conditions over time.

Hence, the amendment process.

Wrong, the Amendment process was put in because;
a) The original Constitution of the Confederacy proved ineffective and inadequate.
b) Most people did not want a new Constitution, with a stronger central government, but a patchwork of the existing Articles of Confederation.
c) A small majority of the delegates wanted a new Constitution, but had difficulty agreeing among themselves much less the large minority who wanted a revamp not a restart.
d) It was hot (no AC had been invented yet) with mosquitos and biting flies all around. So the US Constitution represented the bare minimum of what could be agreed on at the time & they needed a document to present to the people showing progress. So the amendment system was added to address "future issues not yet addressed" (so we can get out of this mosquito riddled sweat-house & go home).
It was never intended to remove rights already in-place but to insure the ability to add specification on rights not already addressed. (The liberal "progressives" screwed that up with probation - denying the freedom to drink - not addressed and therefor the provence of the state/local governments).
The Constitution (and it's amendments) were also never intended for the States. They are restriction on the FEDERAL government - not the State or local governments. So, as intended - if State/local governments want to impose local Gun laws they could (as with weed or gay marriage etc...). Unfortunately some State and local governments had some &%$#@s running things, refusing such things as Habeas corpus, jury trials, defense representation etc... and the Supreme court (which has no legal right in the constitution) ruled (because the people allowed them to) that the rights under the constitution apply to every level of Government. thus forcing State/local governments to provide those rights as-well, and at the same time providing that everyone must have the right-to-bear-arms and the State/local governments can't do anything to stop them. That is where the issue is.

The important thing here is (as I mentioned) - As long as the American people say they aren't then they aren't - As we've already seen with the obama administration, he doesn't care about what the people want. Ever since he got into office, he has completely disregarded the will-of-the-people. This is part-and-parcel for the liberal socialist party. They (as with all socialist elitists) have nothing but contempt for what the people want. The only thing that keeps them in check is the thought of being recalled or not reelected. If any of them even suggested recalling the 1st or 3rd amendment, they would never hold an elected office again! But, they can use fake and imagined issues to create an air of "guns are bad, no-one should have guns except the government" (This is what Rosy O' &%$#@ claimed - till she got threatened, and then the police having guns suddenly wasn't enough for her - she ran out and hired an armed bodyguard - so lesson - no-one should have a gun except the police and me because I'm rich and better than you! - elitist liberal) anyway - there is no line-item-veto - that was voted down (because that would screw how graft and corruption is done in Washington). If a bill ever comes threw to repeal the 2nd amendment, it will be treated as the so-called "affordable healthcare act" - vote yes and then see what's in it. If it passes, then we'll see that line items are in there to erase the entire bill-of-rights (or at least lay the foundation to do so) and - as you say - anything is subject to change - once one part of the bill-of-rights is erased then the rest will follow and we have no rights under socialism.
THAT'S the plan!

So changing one item about guns will cause all items to be invalid, this then enables a current socialist conspiracy to strip all rights from all US citizens, and this is the covert agenda of your currently twice legally elected President?
Can I have some of what you are smoking please?

In response to one point raised it is still possible in developed democracies to be murdered by a gun, however it is so unusual that a single case is headlines for weeks. From what I have been told the US has 5% of the world's population yet 25% of all prisoners.

If anything we "socialist" developed countries have more individual rights and freedoms, than US citizens.
This whole conversation does my head in, as I just can't relate to the paradigms held by some here.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote: that will somehow change if anyone does something about the 2nd...

Because it will, they are only subject to change if the American people say they are.

The Constitution says they are.

The American people have not modified the Constitution to say they aren't.

So, the American people say they are, and always have said so.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:They're called amendments for a reason. Whatever the motivations of the people who passed them they knew they could have screwed some of them up, or some of them could have been rendered irrelevant or even harmful by changing conditions over time.

Hence, the amendment process.

Wrong, the Amendment process was put in because;
a) The original Constitution of the Confederacy proved ineffective and inadequate.

I'm going to assume you're taking about the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of the Confederacy was a different thing.

And no, the amendment process was not put in place because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. A COMPLETELY NEW CONSTITUTION was written because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. The amendment process being one part of that completely new constitution. From the beginning.

b) Most people did not want a new Constitution, with a stronger central government, but a patchwork of the existing Articles of Confederation.
c) A small majority of the delegates wanted a new Constitution, but had difficulty agreeing among themselves much less the large minority who wanted a revamp not a restart.
d) It was hot (no AC had been invented yet) with mosquitos and biting flies all around. So the US Constitution represented the bare minimum of what could be agreed on at the time & they needed a document to present to the people showing progress. So the amendment system was added to address "future issues not yet addressed" (so we can get out of this mosquito riddled sweat-house & go home).

I'm trying to decide if you actually believe the entire form of the US constitution that has been the basis of the nation's government for over 2 centuries is due to a lack of air conditioning and insect repellent... or if this is some kind of joke.

It was never intended to remove rights already in-place but to insure the ability to add specification on rights not already addressed.

Sorry, I'll take the word of the people who actually wrote the thing what it was intended to do. And it was intended to make any damn changes the citizens of the country decided were necessary to *their* government.

<snip long ranting conspiracy theory about how any attempt to bring sense to the 2nd amendment will result in the abolishing of the entire Bill of Rights and the subjecation of all Americans by the Commies...>

gcomeau wrote:The Constitution says they are.

Only if the American people say they are - the entire thing can be thrown out if the American people say it can - the Sovereignty of this country comes from the people and only the people.

gcomeau wrote:And no, the amendment process was not put in place because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. A COMPLETELY NEW CONSTITUTION was written because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. The amendment process being one part of that completely new constitution. From the beginning.

If they had been adiquite then a new constitution would not have been written. and the Amendment process is at the end - not the beginning - that's why it's article 5 not 1.

gcomeau wrote:I'm trying to decide if you actually believe the entire form of the US constitution that has been the basis of the nation's government for over 2 centuries is due to a lack of air conditioning and insect repellent...

Not what I said, they got what they had too to make it viable and voteable and put in the Amendment clause to deal with other things latter, not to allow future government officials to repeal any rights they want to.

gcomeau wrote:Sorry, I'll take the word of the people who actually wrote the thing what it was intended to do. And it was intended to make any damn changes the citizens of the country decided were necessary to *their* government.

And exactly when did you talk to them, which one said "yea go ahead and take back the rights we gave you"? So what your saying is that the American people have no rights, only the temporary privileges that the government allows them, for now. All hail the Government and praise them for the privileges that they grant me today, for they will take them away tomorrow.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:The Constitution says they are.

Only if the American people say they are

Yep. Which, having kept that ability to change those things in the Constitution for the last 200+ years, they do say.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And no, the amendment process was not put in place because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. A COMPLETELY NEW CONSTITUTION was written because the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. The amendment process being one part of that completely new constitution. From the beginning.

If they had been adiquite then a new constitution would not have been written. and the Amendment process is at the end - not the beginning - that's why it's article 5 not 1.

You seem to think that matters. I can't figure out why. You know they didn't rank the articles in order of how seriously you're supposed to take them or something right?

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:I'm trying to decide if you actually believe the entire form of the US constitution that has been the basis of the nation's government for over 2 centuries is due to a lack of air conditioning and insect repellent...

Not what I said, they got what they had too to make it viable and voteable and put in the Amendment clause to deal with other things latter, not to allow future government officials to repeal any rights they want to.

Wrong. They put in the amendment process to allow any changes that would later be decided were needed.

What changes were needed being up to the citizens of any given future period in the history of the nation. They did not consider anything they had written to be unassailable or inviolate.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Sorry, I'll take the word of the people who actually wrote the thing what it was intended to do. And it was intended to make any damn changes the citizens of the country decided were necessary to *their* government.

And exactly when did you talk to them,

You know they wrote things down right?

which one said "yea go ahead and take back the rights we gave you"?

Jefferson for one. As has already been pointed out to you, by me, in this thread. He thought the entire Constitution (that would include the Bill of Rights FYI) should be scrapped and written from scratch every generation because it was undemocratic to have laws passed by one generation foisted on a following generation who hadn't had a say in their implementation... and considered even the amendment process to be inadequate because sheer inertia would prevent people from employing that process to rewrite the Constitution (it takes a lot of effort to pass an amendment) and instead the laws would simply persist and persist and persist... and he did not want that.

You do know that the so called bill of rights is not completely ratified don't you? That the first amendment is the first amendment because it was ratified first?
That the power to suspend Habeus Corpus as Lincoln did is specifically granted?
Or that the department of Homeland Security is Bush jnr's baby.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Or that the department of Homeland Security is Bush jnr's baby.

well...uh...[delete]
(I was going to make a comment but deleted it for fear they will read it and come persecute me - hmm...free speech gone! - 1st amendment gone too it seams - conspiracy confirmed - America's dead, long live the Empire)

MAD-4A wrote:

Annachie wrote:Or that the department of Homeland Security is Bush jnr's baby.

well...uh...[delete]
(I was going to make a comment but deleted it for fear they will read it and come persecute me - hmm...free speech gone! - 1st amendment gone too it seams - conspiracy confirmed - America's dead, long live the Empire)

USA have been an empire since the late 19th century when it started aquiring colonies by force of arms and overthrowing governments and then taking over.

And "America" includes south, central and northern America outside of USA as well.

and we have no rights under socialism.

That claim says a lot of unflattering things about you i´m afraid. Not to mention how it makes you look like a raving fundamentalist lunatic high as a kite on something very funny.

@ Tenshinai, socialism has very negative meanings to the average citizen of the United States, two of our worst enemies have been socialists: the National Socialist Worker's Party (NSPD or the Nazis), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (CCCP or Russia) To you socialism is a benign representative government, to us it is a repressive dictatorship. It is a different world view and not right wing extremism, or the use of mind altering substances. It is just you looking at a nice apple and us looking at a sour lemon.

By the by many socialists call themselves progressives due to this negative cogitation in the USA.

Poker