A growing movement to amend the Constitution (Bill of Federalism) - Also Pro-2A!

SouthernBoy · Nov 29, 2010

P229Sig357DAK said:
The founding fathers today would be standing around scratching their heads and asking themselves how they could have been more clear in their message, and in total disbelief that we cant seem to comprehend such a grammatically simple sentence.

Absolutely spot on the money. The English is perfect and very easy to understand by any grade schooler from my generation. The more recent ones who seem to have a problem with its structure? Well, clearly they never received a classic education.

OC4me · Nov 29, 2010

P229Sig357DAK said:
Completely ridiculous that we need an amendment to the constitution to protect an amendment to the constitution...Especially one that reads that this right shall not be infringed.

I agree it is ridiculous but it is what it is....unfortunately it is necessary. At any rate, the Founders anticipated the need for amendments so they wrote the ability to do so right into the document. It is not like The Bill of Federalism is attempting to modernize the Constitution in order to bring it up to speed with the 'enlightened' modern world. On the contrary, it is designed and intended in fact to restore the balance of power to the States as was originally intended by the Founding Fathers so long ago.

aadvark · Nov 29, 2010

I apologize for my Language, in the aforementioned Post.
However..., it is Alarming how MANY People think that The Second Amendment applies ONLY to The Federal Government, not The People.
Heller and McDonald need to be made more Clear...,
..., was just voicing my Opinion... [...]

Beretta92FSLady · Nov 29, 2010

aadvark said:
I apologize for my Language, in the aforementioned Post.
However..., it is Alarming how MANY People think that The Second Amendment applies ONLY to The Federal Government, not The People.
Heller and McDonald need to be made more Clear...,
..., was just voicing my Opinion... [...]

I think that the ruling they made was a first of many steps through the court that will be made. First, SCOTUS found that individuals have a right to own firearms for self-defense, if I remember from what I read(e) right, it was more a general statement of a right to self-defense, but only covered self-defense within the home...correct me if I am wrong.

"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."

Infringed; (not trying to cherry pick, just picked one) to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed

Is the red tape we have to go through violating our fundamental right to purchase and bear a firearm? At what point does red tape become so much of a hassle that it violates our to bear arms. What if either way the end result is you are able to purchase and bear a firearm? The process doesn't infringe on your right, it merely make the exercise of that right a pain in the butt, but possible.

The Donkey · Nov 30, 2010

eye95 said:
My thoughts: . . .

Amendment V - Contributions not made known to the public should not be considered "speech," because they give the appearance of a being bribe. Therefore, this amendment should protect only contributions made in full sunshine by persons or by organizations for whom all the persons who control it (officers, directors, owners, shareholders, etc.) are known. Sunshine is a wonderful cleanser. I could not support this amendment unless it protected only contributions made in full sunshine.

gsx1138 · Nov 30, 2010

wethepeople said:
I like anything that keeps our Gov. at bay and limits its power, but I must say Barry doesnt give a damn what our constitution says, neither does any other liberal marxist. They are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution and they failed (on purpose) I might add. This is why elections matter! The best thing to do is to impeach Barry and the rest of the left.

To be fair I can not think of a single Republican Pres. or Congress in the last 30+ years that has done anything different than what you just described. I'm not talking about campaign lip service. I'm talking about actual cutting of federal agencies, budgets, and overall limiting the Federal Government. It's easy to point to the 'liberal marxists' and forget that the ones we think are on our side are doing the same thing to us without so much as a reach around.

Old Grump · Nov 30, 2010

It's a bad constitution if everybody agreed with every aspect of it but that is no reason to mess with a perfectly good law as it stands. The problem isn't with the constitution but with the huge number of people who haven't read it or understand it and with a smaller number of people who abuse it for our own good but in reality to keep power in their hands. The problem is they are getting away with it and nobody is doing anything about it.

Attorney generals are political people and the courts are politicized and there lies our problem. Add a dose of apathy and ignorance and we have a huge problem. Changing the constitution will not change the dynamics of our political machine. Only education and active interest by you and me 'Joe Citizen' will change anything.

Daylen · Nov 30, 2010

Beretta92FSLady said:
I think that the ruling they made was a first of many steps through the court that will be made. First, SCOTUS found that individuals have a right to own firearms for self-defense, if I remember from what I read(e) right, it was more a general statement of a right to self-defense, but only covered self-defense within the home...correct me if I am wrong.

"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."

Infringed; (not trying to cherry pick, just picked one) to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed

Is the red tape we have to go through violating our fundamental right to purchase and bear a firearm? At what point does red tape become so much of a hassle that it violates our to bear arms. What if either way the end result is you are able to purchase and bear a firearm? The process doesn't infringe on your right, it merely make the exercise of that right a pain in the butt, but possible.

I think you answered your own questions. If something makes it difficult keep or bear arms it infringes upon it. Direct or indirect infringement makes no difference.

Beretta92FSLady · Dec 1, 2010

Daylen said:
I think you answered your own questions. If something makes it difficult keep or bear arms it infringes upon it. Direct or indirect infringement makes no difference.

"Infringed; (not trying to cherry pick, just picked one) to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed "

What is law? Created by Congress and states.

What is rights? There are fundamental rights...and to save an argument that will lead nowhere...Fundamental rights are affirmed by the Constitution.

What is a violation? Is violation a denial of the right or can it merely be a hinderance to the exercise of that right? Seems there is a lot of gray area.

If the law says that the person has to wait 7 days, than there is no infringement. Until Constitutionality is established. Or if there is already case law that exists regarding the Second Amendment.

The constitutional right is that people can not be infringed upon with regard to their right to bear arms.

Law establishes degree of right, SCOTUS rules the constitutionality of that degree of right established (effectively "regulating") by law.

The constitutional right establishes a guidline, and SCOTUS make a finding on the boundaries with which the law must stay within and finds its constitutionality.

I would like someone to give me a logical justification of why red-tape is infringing on a persons constitutional right to bear arms.

Daylen · Dec 1, 2010

Beretta92FSLady said:
"Infringed; (not trying to cherry pick, just picked one) to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed "

What is law? Created by Congress and states.

What is rights? There are fundamental rights...and to save an argument that will lead nowhere...Fundamental rights are affirmed by the Constitution.

close enough for me for now.

What is a violation? Is violation a denial of the right or can it merely be a hinderance to the exercise of that right? Seems there is a lot of gray area.

If the law says that the person has to wait 7 days, than there is no infringement. Until Constitutionality is established. Or if there is already case law that exists regarding the Second Amendment.

I'm a math person so I don't really deal with slippery slopes I take the limit of them and say that's what is going on. So with a waiting period of 7 days it just takes a bit longer to obtain a weapon that one could obtain in 0 days in the absence of the government. So if it takes 700 days is it infringed? how about 7000 days? or 10^1000 days? I think so because if one can not purchase an arm to keep or bear how can one exercise the right? One could contend there is not right to purchase arms, and that could be extended to manufacturing arms. If arms can not be legally purchased, transferred or manufactured how can they be kept or carried? You might think I am being silly with this argument, but it is basically the federal governments approach to machine guns. Now the right to keep and bear machine guns is almost impossible. A waiting period might not be much of an infringement but it is an infringement none the less, as are taxes on arms, and almost any law we have that pertains to them.

The constitutional right is that people can not be infringed upon with regard to their right to bear arms.

Law establishes degree of right, SCOTUS rules the constitutionality of that degree of right established (effectively "regulating") by law.

The constitutional right establishes a guidline, and SCOTUS make a finding on the boundaries with which the law must stay within and finds its constitutionality.

I would like someone to give me a logical justification of why red-tape is infringing on a persons constitutional right to bear arms.

SCOTUS and the constitution can only protect not establish rights. Rights are supposed to only be bounded by the rights of another individual. How is it my rights need to be bounded by a waiting period to keep my rights from infringing on another's rights?

I was about to make a federal government argument and remembered the topic is waiting periods, which thankfully are not at a federal level. I never have and never shall willfully live in a state that violates me with a waiting period.

Beretta92FSLady · Dec 1, 2010

close enough for me for now.
I'm a math person so I don't really deal with slippery slopes I take the limit of them and say that's what is going on. So with a waiting period of 7 days it just takes a bit longer to obtain a weapon that one could obtain in 0 days in the absence of the government. So if it takes 700 days is it infringed? how about 7000 days? or 10^1000 days? I think so because if one can not purchase an arm to keep or bear how can one exercise the right?

So your question is the timely manner in which a person can exercise their right to bear arms? We would have to establish what a reasonable period of time would be. What is reasonable in this instance. What must the government establish with that reasonable amount of time to determine whether you can legally purchase and bear that arm? I am not sure how long it takes to do a thorough background check. If it takes three days to do a thorough background check than 3+1 (you never know what might come up).

Personally, I don't agree with havening to wait. But to say it is violating your right to get the firearm, that's not the case...you are getting it, and depending on your sense of what is a reasonable amount of time, you could be feeling that you are being violated. Too bad we don't have a consensus on what constituted "timely." And at what point that infringement becomes a violation of said right.

One could contend there is not right to purchase arms, and that could be extended to manufacturing arms. If arms can not be legally purchased, transferred or manufactured how can they be kept or carried? You might think I am being silly with this argument, but it is basically the federal governments approach to machine guns. Now the right to keep and bear machine guns is almost impossible.

Click to expand...

I believe that machine guns should be sold to the general population the same way that all other firearms are sold. The reasoning behind banning or restricting AW's makes no sense to me and is unConstitutional as far as I am concerned...but, I am not a Constitutional scholar, nor am I a Justice of SCOTUS....so I don't get to make the rulings

A waiting period might not be much of an infringement but it is an infringement none the less, as are taxes on arms, and almost any law we have that pertains to them.

Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed." Hmmm, I wonder, is charging tax on the firearm or any other firearm tax infringing on your right to bear arms? So your stance is any process you must go through in order to bear arms is infringing?

SCOTUS and the constitution can only protect not establish rights. Rights are supposed to only be bounded by the rights of another individual. How is it my rights need to be bounded by a waiting period to keep my rights from infringing on another's rights?

Click to expand...

In their protection they can establish rights. You have a right to bear arms is bounded by the publics right to make at least a crude attempt at not giving arms to bear to a lunatic...that is all I can think. Say I am clinically insane, where does my right to bear arms conflict with your right to live in a society that doesn't endorse sales of firearms to clinically insane people?

I was about to make a federal government argument and remembered the topic is waiting periods, which thankfully are not at a federal level. I never have and never shall willfully live in a state that violates me with a waiting period.

Click to expand...

I live in Utah currently and if I move, it will be back to Washington....California can fall into the sea for all I care, and any other commie state that doesn't permit the lawful bear and carry of arms.

Click to expand...

Daylen · Dec 1, 2010

Beretta92FSLady said:
In their protection they can establish rights. You have a right to bear arms is bounded by the publics right to make at least a crude attempt at not giving arms to bear to a lunatic...that is all I can think. Say I am clinically insane, where does my right to bear arms conflict with your right to live in a society that doesn't endorse sales of firearms to clinically insane people?

Absolutely wrong. By "the public" you can mean individuals, or the government and I take it to mean government in your context. Governments have powers not rights. Government powers stop where they encounter the rights of individuals. Rights of individuals do not stop where they encounter the powers of Governments. And governments have no legal power (only coercive) to stop ANYONE from keeping or bearing arms. We went for a long time without ever needing to stop "insane" or those who once committed a crime but who's punishment is up, from having full rights. Those laws were only enacted in 68'. And there is no "right to live in a society that doesn't endorse sales of firearms to clinically insane people". If you really contend there is please explain that.

rodbender · Dec 2, 2010

Did Ben Franklin say, "Let no man, except convicted felons, be disbarred to use of firearms" ?

Did he say, "Let no man, except the criminally insane, be disbarred the use of firearms" ?

Did he say, "Let no man be disbarred the use of firearms." ?

If a convicted felon can not be trusted in society, he should be locked up. If someone is criminally insane, he should be locked up.

Grapeshot · Dec 2, 2010

rodbender said:
Did Ben Franklin say, "Let no man, except convicted felons, be disbarred to use of firearms" ?

Did he say, "Let no man, except the criminally insane, be disbarred the use of firearms" ?

Did he say, "Let no man be disbarred the use of firearms." ?

If a convicted felon can not be trusted in society, he should be locked up. If someone is criminally insane, he should be locked up.

Nothing taken out of context carries the weight of the full argument.

And Uncle Ben, arguably the father of our country, did cast aside his own son over a difference in political ideology. Look deeply enough and you will see that it was freemen and property owners that were the consideration.

Slayer of Paper · Dec 2, 2010

I hate to be a killjoy, but I just don't see this getting much support from our illustrious elected officials. I hope I'm just being pessimistic, but I doubt it.

Slayer of Paper · Dec 2, 2010

Grapeshot said:
Nothing taken out of context carries the weight of the full argument.

And Uncle Ben, arguably the father of our country, did cast aside his own son over a difference in political ideology. Look deeply enough and you will see that it was freemen and property owners that were the consideration.

Their difference in political ideology was that his son supported the crown... In fact, he was "bought" by the crown, being given a high office (I don't remember which) by the king's representative. He didn't want to give that up, and THAT was his reason for not supporting the revolution. I'd have cast him aside, too.

Beretta92FSLady · Dec 2, 2010

Absolutely wrong. By "the public" you can mean individuals, or the government and I take it to mean government in your context.

By the public I mean individuals. I am not talking about keeping the government safe from people who are mentally ill to such a degree that they are a danger to themselves and others around them, especially with a firearm in their hand.

Governments have powers not rights.

Yes, the Government has powers, Constitutional.

Government powers stop where they encounter the rights of individuals.

Nope, Government powers stop where SCOTUS rules they Constitutionally must stop; until that occurs, the Government has free reign.

Rights of individuals do not stop where they encounter the powers of Governments.

Yes, they do. The power that the Government wields and their ability to make law dictates the rights of individuals until SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of any law up for review.

And governments have no legal power (only coercive) to stop ANYONE from keeping or bearing arms.

Government has legal power, they have the power to make law, which in includes, restrictions on firearms, but as per the SCOTUS ruling just recently, not the power to ban firearms.

We went for a long time without ever needing to stop "insane" or those who once committed a crime but who's punishment is up, from having full rights. Those laws were only enacted in 68'. And there is no "right to live in a society that doesn't endorse sales of firearms to clinically insane people". If you really contend there is please explain that.

I am saying that we do have a duty to not sell firearms to insane people. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not possible if some maniac is running around shooting people...what about the Fourteenth Amendment right of the victim?

Beretta92FSLady · Dec 2, 2010

Grapeshot said:
Nothing taken out of context carries the weight of the full argument.

And Uncle Ben, arguably the father of our country, did cast aside his own son over a difference in political ideology. Look deeply enough and you will see that it was freemen and property owners that were the consideration.

Isn't that what we all do, take things out of context...or act like an issue is less complex than it really is?

Freemen and property, yes, but the two did not go hand-in-hand for some time. The black man was "free," in that he was no longer a slave and considered a piece of property, but in some places he was not allowed to own land (is that being a freeman?)...there is an example of the complexity of such a statement, and without being taken out of context.

The implication of the statement "freemen and property owners" is that there are 1) freemen, and there are 2) property owners. However well intentioned the Constitution was, it had many fatal flaws in application and has taken over 200 years to correct.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the contribution of Franklin. Maybe I am expecting to much from a document that was hashed out through compromise. Now we must compromise our way via the design of the Constitution, without compromising the intent of the Constitution; which, IMO, is that ALL people are free to in pursuing life, liberty and the happiness without too much government or ideological interference The latter being most destructive the Americans Constitutional rights.

Alexcabbie · Dec 2, 2010

Several times here it has been mentioned that the Constitution has been amended only 27 times. Horse hockey.

The Constitution has been formally amended 27 times. The de facto amendment of our National Charter is more worrisome, and poses a greater danger than an unlikely "convention'; because the "de facto" process is really quite easy.

All de facto amendment takes is (1)or wh a politician who believes that 'I don't care about the Constitution, I believe in (fill in: helping people, saving the planet, ending hunger, or whatever the cause du jour is); (2) enough voters to fall for his crap and (3) a court system to find some loophole to let whatever crapola this philosophy gives birth to stand, and VOIALA! De facto amendment.

"You cannot fool all the people all the time". True, but for de facto amendment, you need only fool enough of the people enough of the time.

We need to realize that the goal of the enemies of freeddom is to (quoting CS Lewis) have us all running about with fire extinguishers in a flood, or rushing to the side of the boat that is already gunwale under".

See the little game? I hope you do. Because it is for KEEPS.

Beretta92FSLady · Dec 2, 2010

Alexcabbie said:
See the little game? I hope you do. Because it is for KEEPS.

+1

A growing movement to amend the Constitution (Bill of Federalism) - Also Pro-2A!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member