Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[hadit]

The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

You are incorrect. They absolutely have not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn legislation that violates the Constitution, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it is. Tell you what, since you sound like you really believe that, post the law that prevents them from doing it.

 

[hadit]

An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

What will you do when it ceases to be a Representative Republic and a leader ends voting and appoints himself dictator for life? What then?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.

Yes as a matter of fact it does.

 

[Friends]

You are incorrect. They absolutely have not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn legislation that violates the Constitution, no matter how long it's been around or how popular it is. Tell you what, since you sound like you really believe that, post the law that prevents them from doing it.

Article III​

Share:

Section 1.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-----------

There is nothing here about overturning popular legislation. The Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it has bent to changes in popular opinion. The Constitution is nothing more than a guideline on how to operate a representative democracy. If it does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the subject, and leave it up to the voters.

 

[hadit]

Article III​

Share:

Section 1.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-----------

There is nothing here about overturning popular legislation. The Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it has bent to changes in popular opinion. The Constitution is nothing more than a guideline on how to operate a representative democracy. If it does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the subject, and leave it up to the voters.

How does that say the SC can't overturn bad legislation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III​

Share:

Section 1.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (Note: changed by the Eleventh Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-----------

There is nothing here about overturning popular legislation. The Constitution has lasted as long as it has because it has bent to changes in popular opinion. The Constitution is nothing more than a guideline on how to operate a representative democracy. If it does not clearly say something, we should assume that it is silent on the subject, and leave it up to the voters.

Dumb ass the court DETERMINES what is and what is NOT Constitutional.

 

[Friends]

How does that say the SC can't overturn bad legislation?

It does not say that it can. That is what matters.

 

[hadit]

It does not say that it can. That is what matters.

It is the job of the SC to weigh challenges brought against laws to see if the laws in question are Constitutional. If a past SC ruled incorrectly by, say, creating a brand spanking new Constitutional right out of the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution or by relying on foreign law, a future court has not only the right, but the responsibility to overturn that decision. IOW, nowhere does the law forbid the SC from overturning any law it finds unconstitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It does not say that it can. That is what matters.

LOL it states they are final word on all matters involving the Government.

 

[Friends]

Dumb ass the court DETERMINES what is and what is NOT Constitutional.

Right now that is true, but I do not think it should be true.

The Supreme Court usurped the right of judicial review in the Marbury vs Madison case of 1803.

As long as the Supreme Court makes decisions one approves of it is easy to imagine that it consists of nine sages of infinite wisdom who spend their days poring over ancient manuscripts in search of the absolute truth. Instead the Supreme Court justices read their personal values into the vague wordings of the Constitution.

 

[Friends]

What will you do when it ceases to be a Representative Republic and a leader ends voting and appoints himself dictator for life? What then?

Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.

 

[Abatis]

Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.

So, am I to understand that when that time comes, "We the People" are to travel to your house and knock on your door and appeal to you and your brain trust of similarly minded determiners, and beg you to grant "We the People" the right to keep and bear arms in political self defense?

Can I ask how, where and from whom did you come into possession of and become the arbiter, determinator and disseminator of this fundamental and once "self-evident" principle of our government and right of the people?

I've never read anything that would negate or rescind the principles that all governmental power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on the authority of the people and are instituted for the people's peace, safety and happiness. And that for the advancement of those ends, the people have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Again. how, when and from whom did you come to be the arbiter of those principles, the determinator of accepted time and place of exercise and final disseminator of that right?

 

[hadit]

Then I would say that violence against the government was justified. It is not justified now.

Do you not understand the following:

1. It is possible that the American government could be taken over by totalitarian forces. We've seen it happen repeatedly throughout world history.
2. You want to disarm the people based on what you see NOW. Today's environment may not remain forever.
3. Put 1 & 2 together. Now you have a totalitarian government in place and the people disarmed. What is wrong with this picture?
4. The very fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is one of the factors than make those who would attempt to impose a totalitarian government on America think twice.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.

When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"

Or should we raid that home without a warrant because we think the one living in it violated a law.

 

[Rambunctious]

An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Earlier this year the NY state government said they wouldn't obey any ruling from this SCOTUS... if you think a powerful government won't try one day to rule over you like a dictatorship and take your freedoms away and force you to surrender your property rights you aren't thinking...
I'm a Marine and I don't support fighting my government that's why I want an armed society so we don't have to fight them....
Same concept in national security... a well armed USA is what keeps the peace.... a well armed militia and a well armed populous keeps our government in check....

 

[Friends]

So, am I to understand that when that time comes, "We the People" are to travel to your house and knock on your door and appeal to you and your brain trust of similarly minded determiners, and beg you to grant "We the People" the right to keep and bear arms in political self defense?

Can I ask how, where and from whom did you come into possession of and become the arbiter, determinator and disseminator of this fundamental and once "self-evident" principle of our government and right of the people?

I've never read anything that would negate or rescind the principles that all governmental power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on the authority of the people and are instituted for the people's peace, safety and happiness. And that for the advancement of those ends, the people have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Again. how, when and from whom did you come to be the arbiter of those principles, the determinator of accepted time and place of exercise and final disseminator of that right?

You seem to think that anyone who dislikes what a democratic government is doing is justified in resisting violently. I disagree. I want them to be punished.

 

[Friends]

Do you not understand the following:

1. It is possible that the American government could be taken over by totalitarian forces. We've seen it happen repeatedly throughout world history.
2. You want to disarm the people based on what you see NOW. Today's environment may not remain forever.
3. Put 1 & 2 together. Now you have a totalitarian government in place and the people disarmed. What is wrong with this picture?
4. The very fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is one of the factors than make those who would attempt to impose a totalitarian government on America think twice.

The fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in private hands is responsible for the large number of gun related crime and death. That is what I worry about, and not the possibility of a dictatorship in America. However, if a dictatorship does come to the United States, it will come from Trump and his minions, not from anyone or any group on the left.

 

[Friends]

Or should we raid that home without a warrant because we think the one living in it violated a law.

Suggesting that I am advocating that is an example of the straw man fallacy.

 

[Friends]

Same concept in national security... a well armed USA is what keeps the peace.... a well armed militia and a well armed populous keeps our government in check....

Sorry, I am not afraid of the government. I fear Trump, but not the government. Trump will never become the dictator of the United States because too many Americans like me hate him.

 

[Friends]

I like the government. I want a large, powerful, expensive government paid for by high taxes on the rich, a government that is receptive to the majority will, and which crushes those who resist violently. The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court interfere with that. Consequently, I want the Second Amendment to be repealed, and I want the Supreme Court to be substantially weakened.

I want tax evasion and the ownership of an unregistered gun to be punished severely.