Throw it out no longer needed

[WuWei]

@CanadianJudo

@altair1013

@CanadianJudo

everything in the Constitution can be amended.

Not the bill of rights. That’s why they are called “rights.”

Yes everything in the Constitution can be changed.

That’s the theory.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@Rurudyne

Yet the right is an individual one, and there are no progressive weasel words employed to set circumstances where the federal can regulate what Arms ordinary citizens may own or the circumstances by which they acquire them.

Ok.

Still, they didn’t write the 2nd amendment because “Guns are of divine providence!”.

They wrote it because they were cheap.

Myth building.

[WuWei]

@PeterGriffin

@altair1013

This is 2021. Don’t you mean the “white supremacy clause?”

No, but I’d love to hear how a true lover of the Constitution such as yourself would explain the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.

For delegated powers.

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@altair1013

@CanadianJudo

The Constitution says it.
it outlines the process in which the document can be altered.

Sorry, the bill of rights are special. We’re stuck with them.

Well, that’s not true

Yes it is.

[WuWei]

@CanadianJudo

background check are not unconstitutional.

Yes they are.

[WuWei]

This is not the golf forum

[WuWei]

@tnt

No it wasn’t. It was about shifting the cost of arming an army to the citizenry.

What? They bought their own guns?!

[zantax]

@Guilds

@zantax

I define their primary purpose as what they are used for the most and it certainly isn’t killing people.

Never heard of war?

You think the revolver was invented to shoot more game? Or the Gatling gun?

The discussion as I understood it was what guns are currently used for in the US. And the answer is overwhelmingly not to kill people.

[Rurudyne]

Counterpoint: A4:S2:C1 mandates that the States continue to respect the Privileges and Immunities that they were all already honoring at the time of ratification. In this it is functionally the same as the 9th Amendment is for the federal, for there would have been no other applicable body of “rights retained” that the federal must honor than that selfsame body of P&I. You may also note that the first 8 Amendments then bear a clear relationship to the unenumerated rights in the 9th Amendment, either as statements of some these or elaborations upon some of them.

Since the right to bear Arms actually was integral to why the States were independent at all, and not just that they all recognized the right, that should clearly be included.

Incorporation is a spurious doctrine.

Also in passing it is relatively easy to determine what would NOT be a P&I or an other right retained … anything that was illegal among any of the several States that ratified the Constitution at the time they ratified it would not be a P&I (since the article doesn’t make them all responsible for any privilege or immunity unknown to their jurisdiction).

[Rurudyne]

Yep. No enumerated power for Congress to enact those statutes … 10th Amendment is then the controlling Law that forbids them.

[RTchoke]

@WuWei

@tnt

@zantax

Umm no, the second amendment doesn’t say we have a right to guns, it says arms, for a reason.

And that reason is, the Federal government at the time was too cheap to have a standing army or to buy soldiers weapons.

Is it? Where did you hear that?

They 'interpreted" it.

[Bosun]

A lot of crapping , I’d say. Maybe anger management will help.

[Rurudyne]

It helps to avoid the thought that people should be able to defend themselves if the federal government should run amuck.

[altair1013]

@Mountain_Soldier

Yeah, that free speech thing needs to go. And that 13th. Right? None are absolute.

Yes. They are currently working hard on this one. The wokies want to put themselves in charge of what anyone should be allowed to say.

[Bosun]

Stumblin Joe Bumden says Amerika will never run amuck. Bumden signed an executive order to prevent that

[biggestal99]

@Bosun

No amendment is absolute’

That is correct.

Don’t you read SCOTUS opinions?

Allan

[FloridaYankee]

@tnt

@zantax

Umm no, the second amendment doesn’t say we have a right to guns, it says arms, for a reason.

And that reason is, the Federal government at the time was too cheap to have a standing army or to buy soldiers weapons.

Congress could defund the military any time. Is that a standing army?

[zantax]

@FloridaYankee

@tnt

@zantax

Umm no, the second amendment doesn’t say we have a right to guns, it says arms, for a reason.

And that reason is, the Federal government at the time was too cheap to have a standing army or to buy soldiers weapons.

Congress could defund the military any time. Is that a standing army?

Theoretically anyway.

[FloridaYankee]

@zantax

@FloridaYankee

@tnt

@zantax

Umm no, the second amendment doesn’t say we have a right to guns, it says arms, for a reason.

And that reason is, the Federal government at the time was too cheap to have a standing army or to buy soldiers weapons.

Congress could defund the military any time. Is that a standing army?

Theoretically anyway.

It’s kind of a technicality yes, but if there was fear of them taking over, I bet it could be done pretty quickly.

[zantax]

@FloridaYankee

@zantax

@FloridaYankee

@tnt

@zantax

Umm no, the second amendment doesn’t say we have a right to guns, it says arms, for a reason.

And that reason is, the Federal government at the time was too cheap to have a standing army or to buy soldiers weapons.

Congress could defund the military any time. Is that a standing army?

Theoretically anyway.

It’s kind of a technicality yes, but if there was fear of them taking over, I bet it could be done pretty quickly.

I think it much more likely they declare congress a threat to national security rather than disband. If they really work for us they have a funny way of showing it by spying on everything we do.