ironpony
Professional Pot-Stirrer
Which multiple times would that be? Pulling Prohibition only counts as once.Anyone who thinks it’s not possible to repeal amendments is sadly mistaken as it’s happened multiple times.
Which multiple times would that be? Pulling Prohibition only counts as once.Anyone who thinks it’s not possible to repeal amendments is sadly mistaken as it’s happened multiple times.
Three bottles of Smirnoff?What "3 5ths" are you going on about?
That has nothing to do with amending the already ratified Constitution. You're really reaching this afternoon.
Only point I was trying to make is, possible, it’s just not likely.That has nothing to do with amending the already ratified Constitution. You're really reaching this afternoon.
That my friend, was part of the debate that went on in Philadelphia. If the delegates to the Constitutional Convention just went there to rubber stamp an already assembled document, the Constitution would have read verbatim from the Federalist Papers.Only point I was trying to make is, possible, it’s just not likely.
It was the best compromise the largely anti-slavery northern states could get to help keep the South from totally dominating National politics (in their bid to preserve slavery.) Even with it, the South still dominated until the Civil War, although not as much as the South had hoped, as the northern states grew at a faster rate. That growth trend continued as the Second Industrial Revolution reached full steam, drawing more immigrants to the northern (and later midwestern) cities where industry was concentrated.Just reading that 3\5ths law is like a step back in time and strange to read in 2019. But it was real at one time.
I realize times have changed and the debate on the thread has progressed beyond that. Just scroll on by and carry on.
The premise of the argument is that the consequences of the Civil War should have every gun owner scared that Big Brother is coming to take their hawglegs away.@r3gulator3 isn't completely off the mark about the 3/5th's though, as it was removed via the 13th Amendment.
It was the best compromise the largely anti-slavery northern states could get to help keep the South from totally dominating National politics (in their bid to preserve slavery.) Even with it, the South still dominated until the Civil War, although not as much as the South had hoped, as the northern states grew at a faster rate. That growth trend continued as the Second Industrial Revolution reached full steam, drawing more immigrants to the northern (and later midwestern) cities where industry was concentrated.
They don't have to repeal it. They can just ignore it like they've been doing all along.There are far too many gun owners among both sides for repealing the 2nd Amendment to ever gain popular support, despite the braying of certain prominent politicians.
I hadn't noticed that the states were prevented from establishing and maintaining a militia (national guard.)They don't have to repeal it. They can just ignore it like they've been doing all along.
Your wrong here in one way. The amendment is for an individual to bear arms. Exactly what it was intended for. The forefathers never saw us allowing ourselves to be ran by the corrupt ass system we have now. Backed up by one of the better armed forces on the planet.I hadn't noticed that the states were prevented from establishing and maintaining a militia (national guard.)
Oh! That's right! Your precious, non-activist, originalist SCOTUS has redefined the meaning of the Amendment into some kind of individual right which the authors never intended. Then all y'all dumbazz gun nuts came along, and assume that means it's a blanket right for you to own and brandish any kind of projectile weapon without regard to the safety and security of anyone else in society.
Pardon the rest of us. Our children are busy doing duck and cover exercises in their classrooms today. Since they cant be secure enough to study reading, writing or arithmetic because you might be inconvenienced.
You need to read some history, instead of taking the NRAs bullshit talking points as truth.Your wrong here in one way. The amendment is for an individual to bear arms. Exactly what it was intended for. The forefathers never saw us allowing ourselves to be ran by the corrupt ass system we have now. Backed up by one of the better armed forces on the planet.
It is still possible to to add and remove amendments in the constitution. It IS and ALWAYS will be possible. It’s just not likely. That is the only point being made. You want to be complacent and let a government that doesn’t give a **** about you make all your life choices...go for it hoss. You’re obviously way smarter than anyone alive on this rock.
I have read history. You need to not be a grumpy old ass who has to be right about everything.You need to read some history, instead of taking the NRAs bullshit talking points as truth.
The Constitutional Convention was worried about a standing national army overthrowing the government, and wanted a citizen's militia to defend the country. The 2nd Amendment reserved the government's right to form a militia.
Let's break it down: It's one of the most horribly composed statements every committed against the English language. The predicate appearing before the subject pretty much muddies the entire meaning of the statement, and has allowed people to read whatever they want into it - including what you're posting right now.Let’s break this down.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (now days known as the national guard. They are a state ran militia and not a fed ran militia. While they may be trained by the Fed national guard is funded by state)
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (For the people not the militia, pretty plain English.)
A gun to them was a tool just like a hammer/axe/shovel.