28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

Arguably true that currently, because there's no caveat to which arms are covered it covers all forms of arms currently but that would be changed by a new amendment that addressed firearms specifically. Creating the caveat that addresses firearms doesn't violate the US Constitution because the caveat would be a part of the US Constitution.

This is juxtaposed to the Marriage Amendment I mentioned in an earlier post because it would violate the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment. If same-sex couples are denied the legal benefits of marriage (e.g. filing joint tax returns or joint bankruptcy protection) then they're not receiving equal protection under the law.

 

Ayuh,.... So you propose to change the Constitution to attack a symptom of the supposed problem,..??

Rather than findin' a cure for the cause of the supposed problem,....??...

With the exception of 'bout 100 counties in metro areas, there is No gun problem,.....

 

Try explaining slavery prior to the 13th Amendment (that violated the 9th Amendment) or the tyranny of government imposed by the 18th Amendment. Yes, the Constitution does impose constaints upon government but it also delegates authority and power to government. Sometimes the Constitution is just and sometimes it isn't but we've all agreed to comply with it and some of us, members of the military and Congress, have even sworn and oath to defend it including any revisions made by Amendment even if we disagree with those Amendments.

Then why did the statutory prohibitions against same-sex marriage come into existance after the Baker v Nelson case of the early 1970's if there wasn't an imposition of religious beliefs upon those that didn't hold those same religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has long held that the laws cannot be based upon religious opinion alone (Ref. Reynolds v United States 187 the "social-conservatives" constantly attempt to circumvent this Constitutional prohibition by imposing their religious opinion into our laws. Sometimes they're successful and sometimes they're not but the attempts keep on coming and the Marriage Amendment reflected just another attempt.

Of course same-sex marriage may not matter at all to you because you're not involved in a same-sex personal/financial partnership but those that were did care because they were being ripped off financially because they were excluded from marriage based upon laws of prohibition founded upon religious belief (opinion). They couldn't file joint tax returns, they couldn't file for joint bankruptcy protection, they weren't entitled to the inheritance benefits of marriage, and over 1,100 other federal statutes alone that excluded them based upon the prohibitions against same-sex marriage (that the Supreme Court eventually ruled were unconstitutional).

 

That is not exactly true because if the Second Amendment had referred to firearms then James Madison would have used the word "firearms" instead of the general term "arms" that can include virtually anything that's considered to be a weapon. Apparently some believe that Madison was an ignorant man that couldn't state exactly what he meant (e.g. used the word "arms" by mistake because he really meant "firearms") but this goes against the reality because Madison was one of the foremost intellectuals of his era.

Of course what Madison meant when he used the word "arms" in the Second Amendment would become moot if the proposed 28th Amendment was ratified because we have just as much right to define which "arms" are protected by the Second Amendment as Madison had in using the general term "arms" when he wrote the Second Amendment and when it was ratified by the States.

 

For clarification the "right" referred to is a "statutory right of commerce" unrelated to the "natural/inalienable rights" of the person. A natural/inalienable right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person (does not violate the Rights of another person and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person). Commerce always requires two or more people and is not a natural/inalienable right of the person but it is a statutory right, with limitations, of the person in the United States.

Commerce can be limited and even prohibited by the law and the Constitution because the "right of commerce" itself is statutory.

 

While you can support the ratification with over 300 million existing firearms that would be lawfully retained by the people pragmatically there really isn't much of a "cap" being placed on the number or even types of firearms in the United States.

 

Ignoring the meaning of the term 'arms' used at the time is not serving you well.

arms - Weapons and ammunition; armaments

A synonym of arms is firearms.

The militia did not go forth without firearms.

 

In one very important sense what goes on in the UK is irrelevant because British subjects don't have any Constitutional rights because the UK doesn't have a Constitution. All rights in the UK are statutory based upon the political whims of parliament.

On the other hand there is a legitmate argument because we could anticipate that criminals, over time, would secure possession of a significant percentage of the over 300 million firearms that would remain "legal to own" in the United States if the proposed Amendment was ratified.

There is some truth to the saying that "If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns." It's not literally true but there is some truth to it.

 

More firearms doesn't mean more killing, it means more people can defend themselves.

 

But unfortunately it does violate the Constitution. By your logic, if an Amendment was ratified that nullified the Bill of Rights, it would be constitutional. In order to create and ratify any Amendment, government SERVANTS would need to be officially involved and fully participate in the process. But all government SERVANTS are legally bound by the Oath of Office and protecting individual rights is the primary function and mandate of this Constitutional Republic. So their function is NOT to find ways to restrict the free exercise of ALL rights, but to protect the free exercise of ALL rights. Doing otherwise is a clear violation of the Constitution.

 

Just repeal The Second Amendment, thus leaving meaningful gun control laws a real possibility ...

 

You realize how silly even the proposal is, right? There's no caveat for the military under the proposed amendment.

But yeah, no, I would not support it. But, hearing most gun control advocates, you wouldn't think an amendment was even necessary...

 

The 18th gave us organized crime and the Kennedy's...

 

As it's written it's a silly amendment. You have to confiscate all the guns to make it work, as you would still have a hard core of psychopaths who'd be willing to kill others rather than surrender theirs, even if a majority of the people voted for it, which any Constitutional Amendment requires in the 3\4 states clause. You'd also have a lot of corrupt former gun dealers supplying gangs et al, much like they do now but at a higher price since it would be totally illegal.

I can see it happening, but it would only be after some really horrendous massacre, like hundreds or even thousands of people, which you hope never happens.

OTOH 28% are willing to consider the idea, which is an improvement. I believe it's comparable to the number who would vote for a pol who said he was an atheist.

 

So now the general public isn't to be even allowed to OBJECT to laws promoting their own slaughter? Nice to know your REAL views on Freedom.

How is the idea traitorous or even against the oath of office? The Constitution CAN be amended and any Amendment CAN be overturned, and that is IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. What is it about this process that you don't understand?

 

Not only do I vote against it, but if my elected official voted for it I would initiate a recall on him, if no recall was available I would recall him in another way.... Forever. This amendment is what you call a country breaker. The United states would cease to exist

 

Public servants don't take an oath to protect the "rights of the people" but instead they take an oath to uphold the US Constitution which can be changed by Amendment (Article V).

Yes, the "Bill of Rights" can be repealed just like the 18th Amendment was repealed. Even the provisions of the original Constitution can be changed or nullified by Amendment such as how "Senators" are elected to office. Originally Senators, under Article I, were selected by the State legislature and the 17th Amendment changed that to election by the people of the state.

 

Meaningful gun control laws are already possible based upon numerous Supreme Court decisions. The problem is that anti-gun advocates are known for supporting meaningless gun control laws. For example "assault weapons bans" are meaningless because they're overwhelmingly based upon appearance as opposed to functionality and if a similar firearm with the identical functionality can be purchased lawfully then the "prohibition" is meaningless.

The Assault Weapons bans don't even do anything to remove the roughly 9 million firearms that would be classified as "assault weapons" already in existance because they cannot be "banned" by the law under Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. Only new firearms meeting the criteria of "assault weapon" can be banned from purchase.

Assault weapons bans are meaningless laws because they're based upon a stupid criteria of "appearance" as opposed to "functionality".

 

Yes, I know that the proposal didn't include an express caveat for the Military but the Supreme Court would unquestionably rule that the prohibition doesn't apply to the military just like the fact that the 18th Amendment didn't apply to medicinal alcohol. The Supreme Court rules on not just the letter of the US Constitution but also the intent and obviously the intent of this amendment would NOT be to disarm the US military or police departments.

Few gun control advocates want to ban firearms in general but there are some anti-gun radicals that want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. By analogy we can look at the abortion issue where few Americans want to ban abortion in general while about 7% of Americans are anti-abortionists that want to ban all abortions. I don't know if the same percentages would apply to the firearms issue but it would be somewhere in the same ballpark IMO. Of course, according to the poll on this thread at the moment (7 for and 21 against the amendment) perhaps as many as 25% would want to ban all firearms. Not sure because this is an unscientific poll.

 

Then the country is already broken, for some sort of law like this is rapidly becoming a necessity. People simply will not tolerate the constant possibility of being murdered under almost any circumstance that exists now.

However I think you are in a far, far more tiny minority than you think. In fact, you might not even be in it yourself. If push came to shove I think most people, including you, would give up their guns willingly. It's one thing to say you'd murder people and sacrifice your own life for the sake of what is, after all, a hobby and really nothing more, it's another thing to actually do it.

 

Which is one and the same thing. The Bill of Rights and other appropriate sections of the Constitution are a mandate for the US government to protect ALL individual rights. If that weren't true there would be no purpose to the US government's existence other than to exist as a tyrannical entity. The Declaration of Independence, our founding document clearly spelled out the primary purpose of government.

Not without violating the Oath of Office for all those who participate in the restriction of the free exercise of any protected right guaranteed by the US Constitution.

See above. Sure it can happen but then we will not have a legitimate form of government. The 18th Amendment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, all those who participated in creating and ratifying it violated the Oath of Office.

Apples and oranges. While the Constitution can be changed via the Amendment process, it can't be legitimately changed while violating its primary mandate in order to violate its primary mandate.

 

I enjoy a good philosophical argument and the real foundation for this argument is reflected by two lines in the Declaration of Independence that established the political ideology for the United States that is supposed to be embodied in the US Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Some people will quibble over the definition of unalienable and inalienable which is insignificant today because both refer to the "natural" rights of the person but more importantly we've never even come close to the ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Or laws or property are and have always been based upon statutory "Title" established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings as opposed the the "natural right of property" as addressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. Under our current laws "title" establishes ownership whereas under Locke's arguments the "Natural Right of Property" (created by physical labor) establishes the statutory "Title" of ownership. Many people in America have statutory title to property (ownership) where they've never established or maintained a "natural right of property" because they've expended no personal labor related to that property. We're still living under the "property laws" that John Locke expressly opposed in establishing the foundation for the natural right of property. Our laws of property never changed when the United States was created to comply with the political ideology expressed in those two lines of the Declaration of Independence.

The expressed ideology is that the powers of government are granted by consent of the governed but because of White (WASP) Male Supremacy in the United States we've always excluded some of those that are "governed" from voting in elections. In an general context originally only White Men were allowed to vote regardless of citizenship (and often limited to white male property owners and/or taxpayers). Then we allowed other races of men to vote (15th Amendment) while systematically eliminating the non-citizen males (because most weren't white) from voting even though they were permanent residents governed by our government. Finally we allowed women to vote (19th Amendment) but continued to deny the right to vote for non-citizen permanent residents that were also the "people" of the United States for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Represented. They're "represented" in Congress but can't vote for members of Congress. This is in spite of the fact that both Article I and the 17th Amendment state explicitly that members of Congress are to be elected by the "People" and not just the "Citizens" of the United States!!!

Obviously historical slavery and the continuation of White (WASP) Male Supremacy in our Social, Economic, and Political Institutions is juxtaposed to the political ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We're not even close to what the Declaration of Independence expressed as the political ideology for the United States.

Of course the proposed 28th Amendment does not violate the two lines of the Declaration of Independence because it can only be adopted based upon the "consent of the governed" (through their elected representatives in our republican form of democracy). No one has a "natural (unalienable or inalienable) right of commerce" (commerce is a statutory right) which is what the proposed 28th Amendment basically addresses (manufacture, sale, and transport are all matters of commerce). It does not infringe upon the "natural right of self-defense against acts of aggression" because a person still has every right to defend themselves from any attack by whatever means is available to them.

 

Try it then

 

Easy. Slavery was never legal in the USA. It was accepted by the, 'well that's the way we have always done it mentality.' And since it was never challenged by enough ethical individuals who saw past the deliberate misinterpretation of the constitution, by the excepted definition given to blacks as subhuman, it stood until an actual clarification, the 13th had to be written down so their would be no more misinterpreting involved. The 13th Amendment was never necessary, it was simply affirming something that was ignored up until that point.

18th is another acceptable misuse of power and authority, because people are too stupid and complacent, when it comes to elected authority. Lawmakers used interstate commerce to abuse their authority, just like they have with the drug war. Just like an abused/battered spouse, the victim is an active participant in their own situation, and democracy was allowed to run a muck.

Like the saying goes; Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

That is what a republic is supposed to keep from happening. Unfortunately that also requires a remarkably huge degree of ethics, honor, and morality, something professional politicians are extremely lacking in.

Yes and if all three branches of the government worked correctly, and 'the people' insisted on and demanded that of their elected officials, poor legislation, especially unconstitutional legislation would never see the light of day. Again unfortunately our plutocracy is as conniving as it is cunning, and they manipulate a large portion of the population until they demand change, which is basically carte blanche for anything goes. What usually goes is what is best for the plutocracy, not the nation as a whole. But hey the people have spoken, in a round about way, they just didn't do it with the clarity required to keep them from being taken advantage of.

Again because 'the people' are too stupid and complacent, and politicians are out there to push their own agenda, beliefs, and religious dogma, if 'the people' allow it. Members of the USSC know what the constitution says, they simply ignore it when it is in their best interest to do so. This was never the intent of the third branch of government, but unfortunately that is what it has become.

I said I didn't agree with the republicans on this issue. Constitutionally a marriage is a contract. Whatever religious significance a majority of the population wishes to place upon it is their business, but the governments only responsibility is equal protection under the law, and to be the official arbitrator when contracts become breached.

 

Sorry but I am not aware of any such law. Drama aside, WTF are you talking about?

I don't think you even understand the word.

I've explained this already. Some folks are just ignorant to their own suicidal tendencies.

Yes it can, but it should not be legislation that denies 'the people' their rights, on a whim, recklessly, or arbitrarily.