I’m asking for a reason besides “we feel like it”
Anyway states can regulate firearms, they are only restricted from pure bans, they are free to regulate the ownership of firearms as has been done for the entirety of the history of the country.
The amendment process is part of the constitution. It can only be amended according to its own terms, and its terms dictate that those provisions may not be amended. Otherwise I could just declare that I have the power to unilaterally amend the Constitution.
They can also choose which country, constitution wise, they want to live in.
Only if the chosen country will accept them, so that definite isn’t a viable answer for a lot of people.
A prohibition against amending a certain part of the constitution only means you need to manage to get enough support to pass two amendments instead of one: one to remove the prohibition, the other to change what you want. You could also amend the amendment process.
The bolded part is just total bullshit. There is nothing in the constitution that cannot be amended. In order to amend Article V (which spells out the rules for amendments), the rules of Article V must be followed. If it is, and the amendment passes, the amendment process will be whatever the new amendment says it is.
I know it’s a really long sentence, and all, but maybe you should trying reading Article V. This bit in particular:
There is no prohibition at all about amending Article V and removing that clause. However, I will grant that until and unless that happens, we cannot deprive a state of its equal suffrage, and we cannot go back in time to 1807 and screw with slavery.
Okay, now you’re just being silly.
Are you disputing the truth of what I’m saying? Are you really claiming that that clause in Article V cannot be amended in any way shape or form, ever?
And in case you are misinterpreting what I’m saying – I’m not referring to the political likelihood of such an amendment passing. I’m saying that if the process is followed, and such an amendment to Article V passes, that clause no longer has any force in law.
Is there any other part of the constitution that can’t be amended either?
No, because there are no other parts which are specifically excluded from the amendment process.
I’ve been trying to compose a good response to this thread; the problem is that a whole book could be written on the subject, and the replies are piling up faster than I can read them. So here’s what I’ve got for what it’s worth:
The Second Amendment, like the other nine amendments collectively known as the “Bill of Rights” came about because of concerns over the expansion of federal power when the current Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution consolidated war-making power to the new federal government and forbade the states from having their own independent militaries (Article One Section Ten Clause Three). All the states were permitted to keep were “militias”- armed citizens who could be summoned to defend against attack or to enforce the rule of law, and who would NOT be full-time professional soldiers. The new constitution also gave the federal government joint authority with the states over the militia, and that was a sticking point on getting the new constitution ratified: couldn’t a despotic federal government potentially disarm or disband the militias? So although the rest of the new constitution was largely about empowering the federal government, the first ten amendments (modeled after the original English Bill of Rights) were intended to expressly limit the federal power by declaring what actions by the federal government would be considered despotic overreaching. Since obviously the states needed some way of enforcing security and order (before the invention of professional police forces), the Second Amendment states the justification for the provision (“necessary to the security of a free state”) and then what the federal government was forbidden to do (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Now you could take the position that the Bill of Rights is strictly a matter of jurisdictional bookkeeping, but it has traditionally been taken to be more than that; that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are broader statements of general principles, of what features are or are not inherently part of being a democracy of free people. As the Master himself pointed out (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1114/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean) the other provisions of the Bill of Rights- freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and petition, freedom of worship, freedom from summary imprisonment or seizure of property, freedom from the unjust exercise of law- have long been held to be broad principles, binding on any government claiming to be a democracy. Yet for the longest time the Second was the odd man out, to the point that one scholar on the subject entitled his work “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”. Ironically it wasn’t a tyrannical federal government that passed most gun restrictions but the states themselves, progressively banning the possession of guns by negroes, poor people, immigrants, leftist radicals, striking workers, and eventually almost any person in public. While other provisions of the Bill of Rights gradually gained protection against state encroachment, it wasn’t until the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision that the Second gained similar protection. Does this mean that the people couldn’t choose via their elected representatives to ban guns? Certainly they could, but such a move would have to be the will of an abiding supermajority, a constitutional-level change in other words.
The Second Amendment wasn’t intended to give the people the power to revolt against the government so much as the government wasn’t supposed to have the power to impose measures without the support- ultimately, the armed support- of the people. It isn’t that the public has been disarmed so much as the government has been granted enormous military and police power, far beyond anything originally intended. History has not been encouraging on the subject of what happens when weapons are reserved to the government and the populace at large is forbidden to possess them. It’s sort of the principle of the thing; to quote one pro-gun slogan, “Owning firearms is an affirmation that freedom and liberty are not gifts of the state”. A government that would ban guns is perilously close to one that would say “Shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”.
No no, how about going back a step to the earlier question. Are you claiming Article V, in whole or in part, cannot be amended?
That’s it. Thanks.
Anyway, it backs up my claim that going against the government does not have to be rebellion against the feds.
I was addressing cases where the robber just out and out shot and killed his victims because that’s what he wanted to do. Not cases where he shot and killed them because they tried to defend themselves. My point was that they would have at least had some chance to survive the encounter if they were armed.
And the robbers would not be spooked by the unexpected gun threat. The gun would be in their face firing before they even knew what was happening. Point blank, very small chance of bystanders being hit.
Interesting article on Wikipedia today. It perhaps doesn’t answer questions about the relevence today of the Second Amendment, but it surely was the sort of thing the Framers had in mind when they proposed and ratified it: The 1689 Boston Revolt. Long story short: while the Glorious Revolution was taking place in England, the colonials were rebelling against the King’s governor. It was the memory of the sort of restrictions that Governor Andros tried to impose on the colonies that later made them hyper-touchy on even modest impositions proposed by Parliment.
My point was if the robber just shot the abruptly without warning, if the victim had a gun it would make no difference, because there would be no time to draw it and use it.
I see your point. But you don’t wait 'til the robber shoots. When he demands your money, you reach into your pocket or purse, pull out your gun and shoot. He has no chance to fire.
And actually addressing this point, yes you can be shot multiple times and still be enough in control to shoot back.
So, you just shoot every robber, including ones with a finger faking a gun in their pocket, on the chance that they might end up shooting you? Which happens… I dunno, 1% of the time, maybe less?
That’s what I said in my earlier post, and that means the robber doesn’t even necessarily get up real close to you, which means you might not be as accurate, which means…
I realize a lot of people would say to just go ahead and shoot, but I wouldn’t.