28th Amendment???

[Guy Incognito]

No I hate the idea of gun control but I believe in our constitution so I would swallow my pride and abide the law if a amendment was passed.

Amendments are not the only way to change the constitution. Times change, and the law changes gradually, it is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. Whether you know if or not, you yourself support plenty of changes to the constitution by means other than amendment.

Look, the original intent of the Constitution is lost to the mists of time. If you support gun ownership as a fundamental right then you support a new, judicial-activist created sort of law. Same goes if you support freedom of speech for anything other than political speech. Same goes if you support freedom of religion for atheists.

So your mindless devotion to ritual in this one instance is misplaced. You either have to take a step back and look at the historical meaning of the constitution, which was radically different than it is today. Nobody would be happy with that. So apply a bit of intellectual honesty and admit that times change, and it is results that matter.

 

[YoungConserv]

Amendments are not the only way to change the constitution. Times change, and the law changes gradually, it is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. Whether you know if or not, you yourself support plenty of changes to the constitution by means other than amendment.

Look, the original intent of the Constitution is lost to the mists of time. If you support gun ownership as a fundamental right then you support a new, judicial-activist created sort of law. Same goes if you support freedom of speech for anything other than political speech. Same goes if you support freedom of religion for atheists.

So your mindless devotion to ritual in this one instance is misplaced. You either have to take a step back and look at the historical meaning of the constitution, which was radically different than it is today. Nobody would be happy with that. So apply a bit of intellectual honesty and admit that times change, and it is results that matter.

They only way to expand governmental power and denying me rights is to amend the constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

Amendments are not the only way to change the constitution. Times change, and the law changes gradually, it is inevitable and there is no way to avoid it. Whether you know if or not, you yourself support plenty of changes to the constitution by means other than amendment.

Look, the original intent of the Constitution is lost to the mists of time. If you support gun ownership as a fundamental right then you support a new, judicial-activist created sort of law. Same goes if you support freedom of speech for anything other than political speech. Same goes if you support freedom of religion for atheists.

So your mindless devotion to ritual in this one instance is misplaced. You either have to take a step back and look at the historical meaning of the constitution, which was radically different than it is today. Nobody would be happy with that. So apply a bit of intellectual honesty and admit that times change, and it is results that matter.

that's complete crap and we all know it. The founders-by not delegating any power to the federal government to dictate what citizens owned, combined with the second and the tenth amendments clearly indicated that firearms ownership was something every citizen could exercise at a federal level

 

[Master PO]

james madsion

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

 

[chuck71]

Anyone see a problem with this idea?

Proposed 28th Amendment:

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of AR, AK, military patterned firearms or components within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for sporting, defensive or otherwise lawful purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

This Amendment will be further clarified by the criteria set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act hereby referred to as the Pelosi Act.

I think it would actually fly in this day and age.....it makes sense if you don't think about it....

:mrgreen: Yeah! I see a few problems with this idea. 1. Only the bad guys and "Big Brother" will have access to these weapons if it is passed. 2. But 'IF' is the biggest word in the dictionary! According to Section 3, it has to be proposed by 2 thirds of Congress (Both bodies) and ratified by 3 fourths of the 50 States! Whew!!! 3. And, lastly, what the Hell does the Pelosi Act have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Tucker Case]

The constitution does not grant too much power, it is the re-interpretation that does.

It grants the ability to be interpreted thusly, as the Anti-federalists noted well befor eit was even ratified. That's the reality. :shrug:

Read the constitution objectively in absolutes as it was written not subjectively with contemporary jurisprudence.

Reading it objectively is how I came to the conclusions I have reached.

Think about it. My mentality is that of the anti-federalists, not the modern liberals. I would much prefer that your interpretation was more than just wishful thinking, but an objective view of things notes that such "reinterpretations" began with the Marshall court and that such readings were noted by those who opposed the document from the start after correctly and accurately predicting how the interpretations would be in the future.