I meant nobody involved in the crime, of course, but, looking at Britain and Japan, your idea has merits too.
We all, know that you all, think total disarmament has merits.
The FFs were wrong about a lot of things, you know. All discussions of constitutional law should proceed with that held in mind.
If you truly disagree with the principles upon which this nation was founded, then perhaps you should consider finding another nation, whose society is based on principles more to your liking.
The Constitution is what it is—the highest and most supreme law of the land in this nation; which takes precedence over all other laws and all other actions of government. Since the corrupt FDR administration, we’ve had a government that has been taking increasing illegitimate liberties, claiming powers that the Constitution explicitly denies, and generally violating it with impunity. This is wrong, this is illegal, and this is symptomatic of a corrupt government and an ignorant and cowardly people. This is what happens to a nation that allows its public servants to forget their rightful place, and to imagine themselves to be masters instead of servants.
If you truly disagree with something in the Constitution, then there is a legitimate remedy, and that is the amendment process. If you do not believe that Americans should have the unfettered right to keep and bear arms, if you think that government at any level should have the power to infringe in any way upon this right, then I invite you to take the only honest and legitimate means of pursuing this, which is to write your elected representatives and ask them to begin the process of ratifying a new amendment to supersede the Second Amendment, and to claim on behalf of government the powers which you think that government should have to restrict this right. Until this is done, every single gun control law, without exception, is unconstitutional and illegitimate; and every public servant at any level who has any willing part in enacting, upholding, or enforcing any such law is a criminal who is violating the highest law of the land, and breaking the oath that he has taken to uphold this law.
Of course, your side will never take the legitimate approach to implementing any gun control laws,because you know that public support never has been, and never will be sufficiently on your side to support it. Your side will continue to pursue its agenda, never by seeking to legitimately amend the Constitution, but always by seeking to illegitimately undermine and violate the Constitution. But the tide is turning, now, so that your side will no longer even be able to get away with that.
. . . changing this one, but by no account leaving it, as it is no less mine than yours.
The changes that you want will never legitimately happen in this nation, in either of our lifetimes.
They can only legitimately be put into place by amending the Constitution, and there will never be sufficient public support for that. If you get your way by any other means, then you will not be doing so legitimately.
There is nothing illegitimate about advocating for change through the legislative process. Advocating for one’s beliefs* should be encouraged. Opposing such advocacy where it is counter to your beliefs is also just fine.
*I hope BG’s advocacy loses 
Does that hold for other Constitutional rights as well? The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”, and yet there are a multitude of areas in which Congress has done just that, without the law being found unconstitutional: incitement, threats, speach owned by others, and obscenity, to name a few.
Must we amend the First Amendment so as to list those exceptions?
Just curious. Per this mode of thinking, do you feel then that Mexicans should stay in their own country and try to change it?
While I see room for improvement in the gun laws of AZ / UT / MT, I’d put them generally in the non-abusive category. All three states, for example, prohibit currently incarcerated people from possessing firearms. I’m ok with that.
Where the change in question violates the Constitution, the only legitimate path to such change is to amend the Constitution. To seek such change by any other means is illegitimate.
[shrug] That depends on whether one’s first priority is changing one’s own country or seeking economic opportunity. Certainly a Mexican who leaves Mexico can’t affect its politics much.
It is perfectly legitimate to argue for a narrow reading of the 2nd Amendment in the courts; and whether any legislation violates it is a thing unknown until the courts rule.
“Some is balls, and some is strikes, but until I calls ‘em, they ain’t nuttin’!”
– Anonymous baseball umpire
And regardless of whether such legislation is upheld or struck down in the courts, it is perfectly preposterous to suggest, as you have, that the legislators who initiated it should be imprisoned or impeached or debarred from office. :dubious:
Whatever else it was, it was not corrupt.
I’m a pretty staunch gun rights advocate. ** Bob Blaylock** - please don’t be on my side - you make us look bad.
My, how the NRA has changed! It once supported gun-control legislation! Federal, yet!
And they have since seen the error of their ways and have benefited by increased membership numbers. In other words, who cares?
In any case, he appears to have fled the thread.
Aren’t conservatives (as distinct from right-wingnuts) supposed to care about such things as institutional traditions and heritage? The NRA was not founded to fight for 2nd-Amendment rights, it was founded for environmental conservation and for training in marksmanship and gun-safety – nothing whatsoever to do with home-defense, nor with the “insurrectionary theory” of the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously. Would you have a chart on hand to help them make that distinction ? A handy visual guide, perhaps ?