You’re right, actually, it IS outdated. The Founders, based on their rationales for why the 2nd Amendment exists, would have made sure it was phrased in such a way to at a minimum also include anti-tank missiles and shoulder-fired SAMs.
Let’s get that Constitutional Convention started!
I don’t think you can do a Constitutional Convention on just one article or amendment. Everything would be on the table, and I think what would follow could rip this country apart.
Read the (ETA: first) post you quoted; I specifically said (in 2011) that he had dropped that shit.
And you do know we lost a lot of board content in the early 00’s, yes? Did you notice the join date? There’s a couple of years of board history that’s not retrievable.
:shrug: Someone else remembers his shit.
I believe I used the term way back in 2000 in the context referred to above in a previous post.
I never described you as “anti-gun”, that was Zeriel’s characterization of the tone of my posts to you and it has since grown legs. I said you were “try[ing] to steal liberty”.
No, and I wouldn’t consider any of those things as being determinative either way . . .
Ding, ding,ding. We have a winnah!
In as far as I believe such a useless and dangerous endeavor is a mortal threat to liberty, absolutely . . . And explained why I believed that.
No, not necessarily.
The government, as time and circumstances change, has the prerogative to argue that certain things outside the original powers granted to it should be within its purview and should be under government’s control. For some interests a rational basis test is used. If the claim of authority can be said to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest that claim is affirmed. There is also an intermediate level and then the highest level, strict scrutiny, reserved for claims of government authority that impact “fundamental” rights.
Typically this “can we really do this” question is examined after the law is enacted and it is challenged in Court.
I don’t know the jurisprudence of meth cooking laws, whether they have ever been challenged but I would think we can safely assume they pass constitutional muster especially under the includes-everything-that-we-can-ever-think-of commerce clause from which drug (and gun) laws spring.
So I’m not “anti-gun”-I’m “trying to steal liberty”? This has gone beyond silly and is now deep into personal insult territory. This one time I’m just going to assume that you accidentally went a bit further with the hyperbole than you intended, and leave it at that.
I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, that my wanting to clear up the language of the 2nd Amendment to dispel the notion that it means anything other than the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a “useless and dangerous endeavor” that is a “mortal threat to liberty”. Over-dramatic hyperbole, but this time directed at my possible actions and not myself. Have you ever considered decaf?
Well, yeah, but it’s a little disingenuous to say somebody is anti-gun because of something he posted ten years ago - assuming he hasn’t said anything similar more recently.
So I have the “right” to operate a meth lab, but a statute preventing me from doing that would be constitutional. Um, ok.
Liberty-stealer!
Amendment Eight, Section Twenty-Two, Clause Fifteen of the Millennial Constitution will guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear liberty.
Free The Bears!
Please tell us you are not planning to arm the bears as well.
Doesn’t bother me- they can’t aim worth shit.
Who cares? If you give a bear a long arm it can swat you from three feet further away!
Even worse if you try to give a bear a “short arm”.
Well, that was early in the going (page 3) and I only had a few posts of yours to draw a conclusion from. Currently, I would characterize your positions as dangerous to liberty; that you could be an unwitting (hopefully) vessel for those vehemently opposed to gun rights to advance their agenda.
Yes! Most definitely because any opportunity to modify the Constitution opens it up for everyone. Just because you have this particular [unnecessary] intent in mind doesn’t mean that your proposal is the only one under consideration . . . All manner of perversions and mutations would be on the table from every corner of the political spectrum. I wouldn’t trust placing any right into such jeopardy now as there are too many “Americans” that are hostile to anything that precludes governmental control.
And just a couple words about “liberty” . . . I use that term in the context that the founders / framers used it. Liberty isn’t just the freedom to do anything and everything you want whenever you want with no limits, it is a particular CONDITION of living under government but free from arbitrary and useless constraints and having laws enforced on you that no authority exists to enact.
Opening the 2nd Amendment for “revision” to “clarify” the right to arms is unnecessary and dangerous. It is unnecessary because of the principle of conferred powers and retained rights and it has been (for going on 140 years) the law of the land specifically, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not emanate from the 2nd Amendment and thus is not IN ANY MANNER dependent upon the words of the 2nd Amendment (or the Constitution in general) to exist.
I ask you, why do you feel the need to “clarify” words that the right in no manner depends upon?
What you are proposing is dangerous because you are feeding right into the anti’s completely screwed-up beliefs about rights and the Constitution.
You are stipulating that that yes, the right does depend on the Amendment . . . That you, a supposed “pro-gun rights” person really believes the right ***IS ***granted, given and established by the 2nd Amendment and **that ** position, (even for what you feel is a worthwhile endeavor that will act to further secure the individual right), allows them to perpetuate their delusion that if only they could just change (or rescind) the 2nd Amendment, their gun-free Utopia could finally be realized.
The thing is, their position is as absurd as wanting to rewrite Newton’s Law so we can finally do something to stop injuries and deaths from falls. Unfortunately, you, a self-described ‘gun rights supporter’ are validating their delusion with your obvious denial / misunderstanding of what a “right” actually is.
So, even with all your protests of my characterizations and your claims of gun rights support, you are a danger to gun rights and you and your actions are suspect as far as I’m concerned.
Well, there’s certainly something absurd here. :rolleyes:
Please do yourself a favor and learn about “standard of scrutiny”.
Please do yourself a favor and get a sense of perspective. Not everyone who disagrees with your personal interpretation of the definition, origin and protection of rights is an enemy of the people out to steal life, liberty and your precious bodily fluids.
Fine so far; but what do you do when the antis insist that maintaining a condition of peace and order requires the abolition of private firearms, and insist that the authority was given?
I get where you’re coming from about the danger of enumerating rights, but in 20/20 hindsight it’s a blessing we did get a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. If you think the Interstate Commerce Clause and the collective interpretation of the 2nd are abominations, imagine if we had no Bill of Rights at all and Congress could pass a law banning anything, the way the British Parliament can.
ETA: no, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t “give” us a right to own weapons, but it does give us a way to refute the gun banners.