So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed".
So, "shall not be infringed" is weaker than "Congress shall make no laws"?
Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh? After all, neither New York City's government nor New York State's government is "Congress", therefore they're not constrained by the First Amendment, right?
Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).
and all of the evidence makes plain that owning a gun is more of a threat to the gun owner and his family than it is to any criminals or gubmint agents.
Oddly enough, everyone I know in my family (out to second cousins, pretty much) owns firearms. And not a single one of them have ever been shot....
But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.
No, my argument is that you're going to be hard-pressed to convince 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the States), and then convince 3/4 of the States, to change the Bill of Rights.
If you can manage, fine.
Do keep in mind that even if you can convince enough people to make the changes to the Bill of Rights that YOU like, it's also possible that someone else might convince enough people to make changes that you will NOT like...
Do you think there are ANY weapons which should be restricted in terms of private ownership?
Let's see..."militia"...hmm. So, any weapon appropriate to the militia should be legal. Which means light infantry weapons, since the militia is primarily a source of light infantry.
So, rifles, pistols, shotguns - legal.
Assault rifles (the selective fire ones, not the ones called "assault weapons" (which are covered by "rifles" above) and machineguns - legal.
hand-held rocket launchers (bazookas, that sort of thing) - legal.
Because FDR (that patron saint of the left), when he was told by his own Attorney General that he couldn't ban automatic weapons, decided to tax them out of existence.
And since he'd already turned the Supremes into sock-puppets by threatening to just add more Justices until he had a majority who would do what he told them, that worked.
Note that there is (and was at the time), legal precedent that taxing things associated with Civil Rights was a no-no (specifically, Printer's Ink - an earlier President had tried to shut up newspapers by putting very heavy taxes on Printer's Ink, and had been told he couldn't by the Supremes of the time).
No, they're being added. The Militia Act specifies that all of us adult male citizens are members of the militia. What bozo is proposing is that we add a clause making the RKBA only apply when you're on active duty.
So, you have the right to have a weapon when you're in the Army, or active-duty Reserve. Hmm, so, who has ever assumed that the Army or active-duty Reserve was NOT allowed to have guns?
(Wikipedia says that in the First Barbary War, a whopping 54 Marines detachment partook in the fights, alongside the hundreds of crew of like twenty five ships or so, and all the hired mercenaries. The Battle of Derne - 10 Marines, 500 hired mercenaries...)
That had less to do with lack of money than the fact that the squadron of ships sent to the Med to deal with the Barbary Pirates only had a handful of Marines onboard.
You point to a bigger issue, strict Constitutionalists in the U.S. believe the Constitution brooks no amending, somehow it was born of immaculate conception and henceforth shall remain ever as is until fossilized.
Umm, no.
Strict Constitutionalists believe that there is, in fact, a procedure for amending the Constitution (Article V, in fact), and that it SHOULD BE USED if you want to change the Constitution.
Rather than the way that the rest of you idiots behave, which is that inconvenient parts should be ignored....
You ARE entitled to do the same. The process is even layed out in the Constitution.
First, you need to get Congress to propose an Amendment, or alternately, to call a Constitutional Convention. Note that the latter requires the vote of 2/3 of the States to do.
Then, you need to ratify the proposed Amendment. That requires the vote of 3/4 of the States.
Good luck with that on any attempt to modify the Bill of Rights....
You really have no idea. Go find a Mosin Nagant, an ancient Russian military rifle capable of hitting a target at over 200 yards with a high-power round for about $100.
As a matter of fact, I own one of those. And they're accurate a damn sight farther than two hundred yards.
As is my SMLE (a British Service Rifle, which cost me about $100). Note that the most annoying thing about the SMLE is that they used rimmed rounds, unlike everyone else in creation, who switched to rimless...
At the time there were limited arms (you took about 2 minutes to reload) vs able to empty a couple clips in that same amount of time, now.
Umm, no.
A flintlock could be fire three-four times a minute by a skilled shooter. One of Napoleon's guys could manage 12+ shots per minute....
It should also be noted that at the time, there was no internet, television, or radio. Should the First Amendment be interpreted to not apply to the internet, radio, or TV?
It should be noted that governments around the world actually agree that OTHER governments should limit the warming due to burning fossil fuels to 2C....
A couple state legislatures (California and Vermont, I believe) have *already* passed bills calling for a constitutional convention to propose a new constitutional amendment that puts into law that corporations do not have the rights of people, and there is similar pending legislation in many other states.
If a couple of State legislatures have done this already, then they only need 32 more to get it done. Plus the vote by 38 States to make it a Constitutional Amendment, if they manage to get the Convention going.
A cautionary note: once a Constitutional Convention is called, there is absolutely NOTHING that requires it to stick to the stated purposes of said Convention. They can do pretty much whatever they want in the way of proposed Amendments....
Your ignorance is useful to the people handling taxes - if you knew just how much you were sending to Washington in taxes, you might just start objecting to the whole thing...
The problem with the NSA is we have no idea what their capabilities are, technologically or legally.
Well, if you read all NSA-related legislation, you should have a good idea of their LEGAL capabilities are.
Which, unfortunately means reading basically ALL legislation passed since NSA was founded, since a rider could have been inserted into unrelated legislation quite easily.
They are clearly violating the constitution already and there seems to be no one willing or capable of stopping them.
There are several people CAPABLE of stopping them. The President, for one, being their boss. Congress can always just defund them.
Alas, neither the President nor Congress seems to be WILLING to stop them. Consider this carefully next time you pick a President/Senator/Congressman.
Oh, and try not to fall for the "hope and change" line again. It wasn't true when Obama said it, nor when Bush used his equivalent, nor when Clinton used his variation, nor when Reagan said words to that effect, nor when Nixon said it, nor when Johnson said it, nor Kennedy, nor....
ALL Presidential candidates (except the guys who were former VPs, who usually use a "we'll continue the hope and change of the last eight years") use a variation on that theme. ALL of them are lying.
Forbes artical says 150 deaths deaths/trillionkWhr from wind power, but your link cant find 150 total deaths in the history of wind power.
Total energy consuption in 2008 was 143,851 TWh, and wind in 2010 was 2.5% of the total energy generation (and growing fast), perhaps its was 1.25% in 2008. So 143851*0.0125 =1798 TWh from wind.
Your link says 150 deaths per TWh, which equates to 270,000 people beign killed eveyr year from wind power. Do you believe that ?
Umm, a TWhr (TeraWattHour) is NOT the same as "trillion KWhr". There are, in fact, 1000 TWhr in every "trillion KWhr".
Slashdot Mirror
So, "shall not be infringed" is weaker than "Congress shall make no laws"?
Sounds like you'd have no problems with New York State (or New York City) requiring any news article to be approved by government censors, eh? After all, neither New York City's government nor New York State's government is "Congress", therefore they're not constrained by the First Amendment, right?
Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).
Oddly enough, everyone I know in my family (out to second cousins, pretty much) owns firearms. And not a single one of them have ever been shot....
No, my argument is that you're going to be hard-pressed to convince 2/3 of both Houses of Congress (or 2/3 of the States), and then convince 3/4 of the States, to change the Bill of Rights.
If you can manage, fine.
Do keep in mind that even if you can convince enough people to make the changes to the Bill of Rights that YOU like, it's also possible that someone else might convince enough people to make changes that you will NOT like...
Note that the number of kids who shoot up schools is so tiny that they are also "outliers".
Note also that the "kids he hates" also go to malls and movie theatres....
Let's see..."militia"...hmm. So, any weapon appropriate to the militia should be legal. Which means light infantry weapons, since the militia is primarily a source of light infantry.
So, rifles, pistols, shotguns - legal.
Assault rifles (the selective fire ones, not the ones called "assault weapons" (which are covered by "rifles" above) and machineguns - legal.
hand-held rocket launchers (bazookas, that sort of thing) - legal.
Tanks? nope, that's not light infantry.
Artillery? nope, not light infantry.
Military aircraft? nope, not light infantry.
See the pattern?
Because FDR (that patron saint of the left), when he was told by his own Attorney General that he couldn't ban automatic weapons, decided to tax them out of existence.
And since he'd already turned the Supremes into sock-puppets by threatening to just add more Justices until he had a majority who would do what he told them, that worked.
Note that there is (and was at the time), legal precedent that taxing things associated with Civil Rights was a no-no (specifically, Printer's Ink - an earlier President had tried to shut up newspapers by putting very heavy taxes on Printer's Ink, and had been told he couldn't by the Supremes of the time).
No, they have every citizen owning a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon!
NO, we cannot do that.
Article 3, Section 3 already defines treason. And tax dodging doesn't fit that definition however you twist it.
Why bother? The Militia Act is a Federal law that already specifies that. YOU are a member of the Militia, as am I.
No, they're being added. The Militia Act specifies that all of us adult male citizens are members of the militia. What bozo is proposing is that we add a clause making the RKBA only apply when you're on active duty.
So, you have the right to have a weapon when you're in the Army, or active-duty Reserve. Hmm, so, who has ever assumed that the Army or active-duty Reserve was NOT allowed to have guns?
That had less to do with lack of money than the fact that the squadron of ships sent to the Med to deal with the Barbary Pirates only had a handful of Marines onboard.
Umm, no.
Strict Constitutionalists believe that there is, in fact, a procedure for amending the Constitution (Article V, in fact), and that it SHOULD BE USED if you want to change the Constitution.
Rather than the way that the rest of you idiots behave, which is that inconvenient parts should be ignored....
You ARE entitled to do the same. The process is even layed out in the Constitution.
First, you need to get Congress to propose an Amendment, or alternately, to call a Constitutional Convention. Note that the latter requires the vote of 2/3 of the States to do.
Then, you need to ratify the proposed Amendment. That requires the vote of 3/4 of the States.
Good luck with that on any attempt to modify the Bill of Rights....
As a matter of fact, I own one of those. And they're accurate a damn sight farther than two hundred yards.
As is my SMLE (a British Service Rifle, which cost me about $100). Note that the most annoying thing about the SMLE is that they used rimmed rounds, unlike everyone else in creation, who switched to rimless...
Umm, no.
A flintlock could be fire three-four times a minute by a skilled shooter. One of Napoleon's guys could manage 12+ shots per minute....
It should also be noted that at the time, there was no internet, television, or radio. Should the First Amendment be interpreted to not apply to the internet, radio, or TV?
Yes, the militia is well defined. By the Militia Act, in fact.
Might want to read it sometime.
According to the Militia Act, *I* am a member of the militia.
And so are you, if you're a US Citizen who happens to be an adult male.
And so is every other adult male US Citizen except for active duty members of the Armed Forces and Congresscritters and the like.
Hmmm, if the car thief said something to his accomplice, would that make the recording illegal, hence inadmissable in court?
Because your targets are guaranteed to be unable to shoot back?
It should be noted that governments around the world actually agree that OTHER governments should limit the warming due to burning fossil fuels to 2C....
I *was* alive then. And thought the whole business was blown waaaaay out of proportion.
The panic was induced by the anti-nuke mob that were looking for any excuse they could get to ban nuclear power.
And thanks to a President that was a complete dolt, they pretty much managed it....
If a couple of State legislatures have done this already, then they only need 32 more to get it done. Plus the vote by 38 States to make it a Constitutional Amendment, if they manage to get the Convention going.
A cautionary note: once a Constitutional Convention is called, there is absolutely NOTHING that requires it to stick to the stated purposes of said Convention. They can do pretty much whatever they want in the way of proposed Amendments....
Why would they want to do that??
Your ignorance is useful to the people handling taxes - if you knew just how much you were sending to Washington in taxes, you might just start objecting to the whole thing...
And then where would they be?
Well, if you read all NSA-related legislation, you should have a good idea of their LEGAL capabilities are.
Which, unfortunately means reading basically ALL legislation passed since NSA was founded, since a rider could have been inserted into unrelated legislation quite easily.
There are several people CAPABLE of stopping them. The President, for one, being their boss. Congress can always just defund them.
Alas, neither the President nor Congress seems to be WILLING to stop them. Consider this carefully next time you pick a President/Senator/Congressman.
Oh, and try not to fall for the "hope and change" line again. It wasn't true when Obama said it, nor when Bush used his equivalent, nor when Clinton used his variation, nor when Reagan said words to that effect, nor when Nixon said it, nor when Johnson said it, nor Kennedy, nor....
ALL Presidential candidates (except the guys who were former VPs, who usually use a "we'll continue the hope and change of the last eight years") use a variation on that theme. ALL of them are lying.
Umm, a TWhr (TeraWattHour) is NOT the same as "trillion KWhr". There are, in fact, 1000 TWhr in every "trillion KWhr".
Well, no.
Whether there are too many of us is debatable, but it is NOT debatable that the rate of population increase has been decreasing steadily for decades.
Current projections show population peaking under 12 billion, and declining thereafter.
So, no, we're not continuing to multiply "at a obscenely accelerating rate".
So, I'll assume the rest of your rant is as devoid of fact as the part I quoted, and not waste time either reading or responding to it.