Making the ownership of handguns illegal

don't need to. the constitution specifically states how an amendment can be passed.

correct. everyone knows they can be taken away with additional amendments.

it doesn't exist here either. every amendment, article and clause of the constitution can be abolished by a subsequent amendment.

Madison also knows that every amendment can be abolished, by a subsequent amendment.

 

It doesn't address the bill of rights, just future amendments. Cite the passage that allows what you suggest. No one ever agreed inalienable rights could be removed. Tyrants you become if you suggest it, the framers literally all agreed to this standard, as did all of the states. Your characterization is simply wrong. Thomas Jefferson wrote: Thomas Jeffersonagreed, writing in December 1787: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth . . . and what no just government should refuse.” Meaning that the passage was never meant to allow for these rights to be abridged. You still have never shown any support for you position other than you demand it. The SCOTUS have almost unanimously maintained that the originating rights cannot be amended out of existence.

Your assertions are jus that. Baseless and inaccurate. No amendment to the constitution could, for example remove the first, second, or their clauses. You couldn't amend your way out of having a the balance of power. Ever. Again. I understand this isn't the way it works in other countries. But it does here. And again, why are you so boned to advocate that a super majority could unwrite our constitution?

 

there is no such legal thing as the bill of rights. they are simply the first 10 amendments.

Article 5

inalienable rights are not a real/tangible thing. They are a philosophical construct.

no they didn't, which is why the constitution contains article 5.

it doesn't matter how many times you say this. It is an objective fact of constitutional law that an amendment can be abolished or repealed by a subsequent amendment. This is basic 6th grade level civics.

 

Cite your source. Defend your baseless assertion.

 

Who said I believe any of that?

There are tons of sites were you can download pirated music and movies even though they try and shut those down they still exist. Seems to me like you just tried to ignore what was shown to you rather than actually address it.

 

Truly a noble idea. All real Christians will support this.

 

I've already cited it. It's not an assertion, baseless or otherwise. It is an objective fact of constitutional law.

Article 5

 

lol, no, not talking about zipguns. here's some folks (video below) in the phillipines that make semi-auto colt .45 1911's in the jungle with hacksaws and hand files. Imagine what they could do with a $50 dremel, not to mention a $600 mill and a $300 lathe- all machines commonly found in many '1st world' residential garages (I have a lathe, very soon a mill).



Actually, you don't have to imagine it, because there's uncountable videos on youtube of 'first worlders' and their DIY firearms manufacturing results. If you're actually interested in educating yourself on the ease of (and thus futility of trying to ban) DIY firearm manufacturing, search more 'diy pistol' 'diy rifle' 'homebrew handgun' and similar terms on youtube (before youtube bans them and they get relegated to the darker/more free corners of the web).

And then, of course, there's the 3D printing stuff, which makes the entire process about 50% faster (and thus more profitable for the black market) every year or so, as plastics become more and more durable and 'metal printers' become more and more capable. Printing a full 'bolt-together' semi-automatic firearm is not very far off, and probably can already be done for smaller caliber weapons with relatively 'light' (but still entirely lethal) charges.

Then no, they will not 'dwindle'. They will reduce with continually greater diminishing returns until until black market supply meets demand, and then it will stabilize.

I chose 'no change' because it was the closest option to 'minor fluctuation while the market adapts with no meaningful overall change' as I was trying to not be overly technical... because I hate it when people are overly technical in my polls

Well don't leave us hangin! How do we make it so no one ever wants to try to hurt us or take our stuff? You have the secret to utopia, and you're holding it back?!

;D

 

we are not talking about a law. Driving is not a protected right

Do you not understand the bill of Rights? Obviously you do not

It is not something that the govt bequeathed to the people. They are inalienable rights PROTECTED by the Constitution. The Right to Bear Arms is just as protected as the Right to Free Speech. I do realize that free speech is next on the list of things that Democrat voters want to control

Why as a Democrat voter do you think that you know better than another? When did you get the idea that your fellow citizens who do not vote Democrat are inept and need you to decide things for them?

 

I think it will initially raise the shooting deaths as the authorities pry the weapons from the cold dead hands of the nation's buttheads, but after that the other gun nut blowhards will give up their guns if the cops promise not to hurt them.

 

YOU speak from experience in
Black ghetto neighborhoods?

 

Why doesn't that work with the inner city gangs?

 

Maybe because they are not gun nut blowhards? I'm not looking at you...really.

 

Im trying to incorporate the deep republican fear that if we arent all armed like Rambo, criminals will go nuts and kill everyone.

 

There are fewer than one million sworn officers the U.S. You are being a tad optimistic in assuming they'd even try to confiscate but even if they do, a resistance would quickly form. You're entitled to believe as you wish but your belief doesn't mean the rest of armed America agrees or would allow 2A to be removed.

 

I hear there is a Beta version of this being tested in NYC. You should go and experience the peace and bliss and report back to us.

 

I think you're taking this gun snatching thought experiment way more seriously than I am. I do think 2A needs repealed but that will not solve the US gun problem, though it will help. What we need to do (if you want to know) is register all guns and owners can buy a restricted amount of ammo for their guns and they are legally responsible for it. They can go to target ranges for practice where they purchase ammo there for target the practice similar to the Swiss model. Illegal gun owners cannot buy ammo. And before you say, yeah but....nothings perfect.

 

Ah yes, appealing the Second Amendment. Right up there next to balancing the national budget and sincerely representing the wishes of their individual electorates on every politicians wish list.

 

It's no "secret". It has been stated a thousand times but as I said no one wants to talk about it and it is not the subject of this thread.

 

Maybe.

 

When you've succeeded to incorporate it let me know how you do it. I suspect that when you purchase a firearm you get an NRA "instruction manual" DVD that's laced with sublime messages to the effect you mention.

 

I don't think many understand any part of this. It's the third wish of Alladin's Lamp: "I wish for 3 more wishes". In essence, the non-infringement clause is unconstitutional because the constitution provides for the implementation of amending. It's baked into the Constitution itself. It is part and parcel of it. To claim any one amendment may not be re-amended (repealed) is .... well ...... besides being outrageous ... it is unconstitutional. Why is that fact even being questioned? The only room for discussion on the point might be the possibility that the "non-infringement" clause was meant as a demonstrative comment on the specific contents of the 2nd. amendment but not referring to the amendment itself. Similar to saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident" which certainly does not mean that every citizen actually understood (understands) those "truths" but only a way of expressing resolve by the parties who drew it up.

 

Huh? The Bill of Rights is not partisan. Just because you CHOOSE not to exercise a particular right, and that is your own decision, doesn't mean that you get to dictate to others what they can do.

 

HUh? It is understood however it is not as simple as Democrats enacting a law. If Democrats wish to enact full tyranny, then amendments must be drafted and passed in a proper manner. Question- why do Democrat voters want to target the Bill of Rights?

I really would love to hear your thought process on that. Are you simply toeing the Democrat party line or did you arrive at the conclusion yourself that a small group of folks should oversee the behaviors of the majority as we the people are incapable of managing our own lives?

 

You are completely ignoring the right to amend. It has nothing to do with "dictating" by the individual ... or the "Democratic party" ... or a "full tyranny". I am going to be very honest now and tell you that you are using words that you do not understand. In any case, THIS IS A POLL. You can check off the box that applies to your opinion. You can even check off the box that applies to your opinion with an explanation of why you chose it. But this thread has nothing to do with anything else and you don't even know what political party I belong to. Read the OP and stick to it.