Man Up Democrats: Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Conservatives first.

Otherwise, why would democrats wish to repeal an Amendment they fully support?

Which one is that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am not sure why the op is so paranoid and why he makes so many topics about this, he does know that many democrats own guns along with some voting republicans, as gun owners and also supporters of across the board common sense gun laws. I can only figure they are the ones that already illegaly own guns per the 1968 gun control act and dont want to be found out about.

This only means you aren't very imaginative.

 

[PaulS1950]

There is no place in the constitution where the supreme court is granted the power to determine the constitutionality of any law. The constitution grants only certain powers to the federal government, including the supreme court and the rest of the powers - not prohibited to the states remain states powers.
The bill of rights itself says that no government body or agency has the power to infringe upon them. The 10th amendment makes it very clear the the federal government has very limited authority over the states. the supreme court is granted its powers in article III sections 1 through 3.
The states and the people determine the constitutionality of federal laws and can ignore and change them. No one, not the people, states or federal government have the power to restrict or circumvent the "natural" rights as listed or referred to in the Bill of Rights.

Study the constitution - then make your remarks.
Show me where the high court is granted constitutional authority....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Imagine the hysteria if we told the Progressives that the Jury (in criminal cases) are supposed to exercise judicial review (Jury Nullification), not the court?

However, all other cases are left to the Courts decide, since there is no other arbiter.

 

[PaulS1950]

The jury has the right in any trial to determine the guilt or innocence OR judge the law invalid.
The judge will not tell the jurers that they have that option but they do.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The jury has the right in any trial to determine the guilt or innocence OR judge the law invalid.
The judge will not tell the jurors that they have that option but they do.

Jury Nullification: As the Founders intended.

 

[Agit8r]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law.

I'm guessing that you haven't read many SCOTUS decisions

 

[Politico]

simply defining Arms is sufficient - all public firearms must be lever or bolt action per round and with non detachable magazines ...

Then why won't you put it up for a vote? Don't be a bunch of pussies. Stand up for what you believe. If it was me I would not care whether I got re-elected.

 

[martybegan]

There's no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. State and federal courts and legislatures are chipping away at it - much the same way that righties are chipping away at Roe v. Wade and abortion rights.

So as long as you disagree with something, ANY tactic is acceptable to end the practice?

 

[martybegan]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Beacuse progressives are not honest most of them dont do this. What they do is chip away at it via legislatures and sypathetic courts.

Same result, but less honesty, because progressives can't be honest about how they really feel about civillian gun ownership.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law.

I'm guessing that you haven't read many SCOTUS decisions

Hey fukko

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court itself declared that "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

 

[LoneLaugher]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Beacuse progressives are not honest most of them dont do this. What they do is chip away at it via legislatures and sypathetic courts.

Same result, but less honesty, because progressives can't be honest about how they really feel about civillian gun ownership.

I am a progressive. I own a gun. I feel good about it. Try again.

 

[martybegan]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Beacuse progressives are not honest most of them dont do this. What they do is chip away at it via legislatures and sypathetic courts.

Same result, but less honesty, because progressives can't be honest about how they really feel about civillian gun ownership.

I am a progressive. I own a gun. I feel good about it. Try again.

and you want everyone else to follow the restrictions on guns that YOU think are OK, never mind that rights are not supposed to subject to the whims of the majority.

You keep whatever pea-shooter you think is adequate, let others decide that for themselves as well.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Ninth Amendment has four important functions:

I. It functions as an educational tool, whose information cannot be hidden from the public.

II. It functions to prevent government from invalidating a ruling by either a jury or lower court through strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).

IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny.

Function 1:
The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an Educational amendment, in order to instruct the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us by birth --- not by government; that government can only perpetrate oppression and abuse --- neither liberty nor protection --- via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.

This particular function has NO meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of "Government created rights," or other Statist philosophies, is rotten to the core. It would make for a great attack ad, because it would either force the defending politician the renounce Natural Rights, or spin an overtly contradictory web of "justifications" to "clarify" their remarks.

Function 2:
The second function of the Ninth Amendment prevents a higher level of authority from invalidating a decision by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

For instance, suppose that a factory was producing massive amounts of toxic air pollution, the jury could rule against the factory by saying:
"We the jury find that every man has the right of Life, and as such, the right to breathe. We have determined that the air toxicity has infringed upon the people's right to breathe, and thus their right to life. This is in accordance and in the spirit of the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Thus the judge would be unable to invoke a "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict," to acquit the factory (unless he can prove the evidence for air toxicity was extremely faulty), forming a bulwark against judicial cronyism.

Function 3:
Although the Constitution allows judicial review*** via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Limits the rights of citizens.
2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.
3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.
4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be delimited, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.

IV.
The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.

Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:
1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny
2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.
3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

*** Is judicial review allowed?
Excerpt from Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court."
Excerpt from Article III, Section 2:
""The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

Excerpt 1 + Excerpt 2 = Judicial Review is allowed through either Jury Nullification or a court ruling, with the Supreme Court having the ultimate authority, unless a defendant is found NOT GUILTY by a Jury, as the Sixth Amendment bars any judge from overturning a NOT GUILTY verdict.

Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...

The word "enjoy" means that although a GUILTY verdict can be overturned (under extreme lack of evidence), a NOT GUILTY verdict can NEVER be overturned, not even by the Supreme Court.

------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, the Ninth Amendment cements the Libertarian foundation of our Constitution, and our Founding Fathers (and the State legislatures) ratified this Amendment into the Bill of Rights so these Libertarian ideas could not be HIDDEN from the public by future tyrants, who would try to promote Statism.

The plutocratic elite that dominates the United States (primarily through the privately owned Federal Reserve) has done an excellent job in fooling the citizens to succumb to the idea of Government created Privileges, instead of Naturally Endowed Rights; in fact, they've done such a good job, that practically any google search will yield a result informing you that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant. Do you really think our Founding Fathers (given all the disagreements among themselves) and the State Legislatures went through all that trouble to ratify a useless Amendment? Do not be fooled, the Ninth Amendment is the very foundation of our Constitution!

So if any individual, group, organization or corporation attempts to promote Statism, remember that your Legal and Moral Bulwark against these Authoritarians is the Ninth Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Better man up during the filibuster!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Beacuse progressives are not honest most of them dont do this. What they do is chip away at it via legislatures and sypathetic courts.

Same result, but less honesty, because progressives can't be honest about how they really feel about civillian gun ownership.

So the answer is ‘no.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Better man up during the filibuster!

In case you haven’t noticed, you’ve another failed thread on your hands.

As the OP, perhaps you’d like to take a swing at naming at least one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"We want a vote" chanted President Obama and his sheep last night!

President Obama, the Bill of Rights is not up for a popular vote, it can only be repealed via Article V.

 

[martybegan]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

Beacuse progressives are not honest most of them dont do this. What they do is chip away at it via legislatures and sypathetic courts.

Same result, but less honesty, because progressives can't be honest about how they really feel about civillian gun ownership.

So the answer is ‘no.’

Its really that the changes proposed by the gun grabbers REQUIRE the amendment to be changed, and yet they don't do it, instead they pass unconsitutitonal laws and hope they get progressive judges.