How about the battle of Athens? Americans whipped the crooked governments asses.
Seems to me the light of day and a few determined men put a halt to Ried’s little China deal recently too…
That’s precisely why the democrats in general and progressives in particular are in a minority in governing this nation .
I have a friend that lives in Illinois . In Illinois a firearms owner must have a state issued fire arms card to purchase fire arms or ammunition . He was forced to wait over a year to get his card without ever receiving a explanation for the delay !
If 72 hours is to little time what is too long to wait for the federal bureau of investigation to complete a digital background from their data base ? I have purchase firearms and have waited as long as ten to fifteen minutes while the sales person called in the information on my purchase ? Justice delayed is justice denied the same is true in regards to the second amendment .
You must be kidding the N.R.A is the premier source for safety training and handling of firearms !
Another good source for finding a firearms safety course that will be both effective, and will comply with your state’s firearm laws, is with the National Rifle Association. On NRAHQ.org, you can find a tool that will point you towards training courses in your area, allowing you to find the right resource for your own level of experience, and for satisfying any requirements you might need to complete in the process of buying a gun.
Their training courses can also ensure that you become proficient with your firearm, so that perhaps you can get more value out of buying a gun then mere defense, as you learn to target shoot and begin to enjoy it, which will also ensure that you are well-equipped to take care of your own weapon.https://gun.laws.com/gun-license/firearms-safety-course
The NRA website also provides a good resource for basic rules that should always be followed, and should be taught in any gun training course. These include such important tips as keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction, keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, keeping the gun unloaded until ready to use.https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/
Changing or repealing an amendment requires the same process as changing or appealing the Constitution in general. The Amendment must be proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by request of 2/3 of the state legislatures. Once the amendments are proposed, they must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Nothing can get around the ratification by the states.
The Second Amendment will not be repealed because no amendment to repeal or weaken the Second Amendment will receive ratification from that many states.
This is the bless and the baine of the US Constitution. It requires serious consensus to change and something that the progressive left have found to be a monumental constraint to their movement. So the result is a deliberate subversion of the constitution by … taking liberties with its interpretation and downright ignoring it with judicial review and congressional precedence. Our laws on all fronts are far removed from their constitutional underpinnings and unless people start demanding that the US Constitution is in fact the supreme law of the land, we really don’t have a constitutional republic.
Let me make it really simple for everyone. In order to stop gun violence we need to get rid of the guns. There. See how easy that was? If there aren’t any guns then it won’t be possible for people to be killed or injured by one.
I don’t think you realize the kind of world you will have created by disarming the last ‘free’ society on the planet. I’m not so sure that you actually can envision the kind of world you want but believe me, peace and love will never reign supreme. Out side of the body altering chemistry that allows girls to be boys and boys to have a womb, you will never subdue human nature… certainly not by force.
But if you do manage to pull this off, totalitarians around the world will thank you… America has been a tough nut to crack. I think it was Kruschev that said ‘We will bury you’…‘We shall destroy you from within’
Sometimes you need to make sacrifices for the greater good and if we are the light of democracy feel free to help extinguish the flame…
Scott let me be completely clear. I fully support the Second Amendment in its entirety. I have absolutely no objections to people joining a well regulated militia and keeping their firearms locked up in an armory and accessible should they ever need to be used to provide for the safety and security of the state.
I don’t support how the right-wing and the NRA have totally perverted the language and meaning of the Second Amendment. I prefer to take the words of the Constitution and the Second Amendment at face value. Don’t you?
[quote=“Matt, post:1, topic:531, full:true”]
What prevents the Second Amendment from being changed or repealed?[/quote]
In theory, it Is possible.
In fact, even in actual practice, it has happened…once: The Eighteenth Amendment (which ushered in Prohibition) was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment (almost 14 years later).
But there is a very high bar to clear: Either a two-thirds supermajority of both chambers of Congress (i.e. the House and the Senate), or a two-thirds supermajority at a national convention called by Congress.
The latter has never even been attempted.
And to get a two-thirds supermajority, national sentiment would have to be near-unanimous–Senators and Representatives tend to reflect the views of their respective constituents–and it is nowhere near unanimous. (Those on the coasts–which is to say, both the entire West Coast and the Northeast–are mostly in favor of this sort of thing, whereas most in the Midwest and the South–except, perhaps, in major cities–are not.)
So we are much too divided for such an amendment repeal at this time.
Oh… you mean like the progressive left has totally subverted the meaning for the enumerated powers of the constitution… the same constitution that makes absolutely no mention of implied powers… those seeming coming from the imagination of people who sought and still seek to make the federal government the sole sovereign power of the US (except for the seeding of those powers to unelected international organization.)
Your interpretation of the second amendment has been proven wrong on many levels… And of course your confidence in an always benevolent government, given world history is astonishing…
You would do well to read up what our law actually says about a the definition of a militia… I’ve already been over this with someone else but read the background literature… the federalist papers… the anti-federalist papers, letters, documents and speeches… Those arms were intended to be in the possession of the individual… Also look at 10 U.S.C. 311 - Militia Composition and Classes. One is composed of a governmentally regimented organization… and the other unregulated. Now some may make a case that anyone outside the ages of 17 to 46 no longer hold the status of being a member of a militia… an armory is not a prerequisite…
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Within the confines of those admonishments is the Second Amendment… which shall not be infringed… ‘Shall Not’ is a definitive legal imperative…
No legal fire arms will leave only illegal fire arms !
We know police respond to crime leaving citizens at the mercy of criminals !
So it isn’t simple Dan more then half the homes in America have legal fire arms in them .
We keep hearing it would be impossible to deport 11 million illegal immigrants how would you go about confiscating three hundred million legal weapons ?
The supreme court has ruled on the second and found your democratic interpretation to be lacking !
The evidence is pretty good that the 2nd amendment’s reference to militias means the slave patrols of the south. Note the Amendment refers to states not the country as a whole.
If so, then, isn’t the 2nd Amendment repealed by the 13th?
If slavery is banned and outlawed then there is no need for the slave patrols, so bye bye 2nd Amendment. Almost all amendments do not refer to the clause in the Constitution which is being amended.
The 21st does explicitly say it repeals the 18th, but that is what the 21st is entirely about.
The 13th is about abolishing slavery. That, in so doing, it takes out the 2nd is incidental.
WTF are you talking about… Of course you would hold that same stupid take on the first amendment or perhaps the ability of the ‘rights’ you seem to believe is granted and ordained by government. Oh, could you please provide ANY source material for your … assumptions.
Can’t ignore the commas they have meaning !
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed.”
the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence.
Nah, the evidence is pretty good that the founders had fears of a large standing army and that Thomas Jefferson and his ilk had fantasies of citizen militias rising up to snuff out tyrannical governments. The reason the amendment refers to the states and not the nation as a whole is because of the fears of a standing national army. That slave patrols were also within the conception of the amendment is certainly also true, but the big mover behind this was citizen militia.
Excuse me… isn’t that precisely what they did?.. They did in fact face a standing army little access to cannons and ships or the established encampments… Fantasies?
It is true that this idea that the Founders went with militias as a nod to the South and its need to keep the slaves down, has gained a certain amount of traction. But it just isn’t so. At least some Northern states had much stronger militias at the start of the Civil War. This allowed the Illinois militia to invade and overpower the Missouri militia as that state tried to secede, and the Massachusetts militia to do the same to Maryland. These militias were called to federal service right after Ft. Sumter, but they would not have been available for quick and decisive action had their states not maintained powerful state militias before the war.
Had there been some overall, across the board, tendency to stronger militias in the Confederate states, the opening months of the war, when it was lost to the South, would have been very different. It’s not just a matter of Missouri and Maryland having weak militias. Confederate states with strong peacetime militias, had there been any such, could have rushed them into Missouri and Maryland to fight off the federalized Union state militias.
This idea that militias are a Southern thing is linked to a wider incorrect idea, that the South, besides being pro-slavery, had this difference from the Northern states, that it believed in states’ rights to a greater extent. Yes, these Southern states seceded, a sort of ultimate assertion of states’ rights. But Northern states had earlier nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, an assertion of states’ rights that galvanized the Republican Party into the national force that won the 1860 election.
The war was about slavery. We know this because the victors ended slavery, passed the 13th. States’ rights was not in dispute, beyond the specific question of secession. The North was as respectful of states’ rights in every other aspect, because it credited nullification and strong state militias, rightly, with victory in the cause of ending slavery. The victors in that war did not repeal the 2d, the 10th, and Art IV, sec 4, which they would have done if they had been anti-states’ rights. They thought the war was about slavery, so they passed the 13th, 14th and 15th.