U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed
Source:
LF
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 9, 2015
Author: tpaine
Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 86489
Comments: 255
The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment
AMENDMENT 28.
Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only.
Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 128.
#9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0)
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution.I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments?
Yes, I have a comment (or two.)
Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger.
"Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS.
We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.)
What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set.
Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS
#87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9)
Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger.
He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down.
I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt.
What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
#94. To: nolu chan (#87)
I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
#98. To: tpaine (#94)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
#101. To: nolu chan (#98)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one..
#109. To: tpaine (#101)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked.
Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions.
"There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502
Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch?
Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration?
Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens?
Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien?
#117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109)
I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?"
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked.
You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision.
Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>>
Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
#119. To: tpaine, nolu chan, ALL (#117) (Edited)
I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
No need to address this, chan.
It is quite obvious that everyone showed tpaine to be wrong.
And tpaine will never man up to admit he was wrong.
It is now quite evident that tpaine is no Constitutional expert.
He is what he is....just an opinionated, bullheaded idiot.
#120. To: Gatlin, Nolu Chan, Y'ALL (#119)
It is now quite evident that tpaine is no Constitutional expert.
He is what he is..
Yep, I'm a retired building contractor, who has never claimed to be a constitutional expert, -- but it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moral super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, outlined in the Bill of Rights.
#121. To: tpaine, Gatlin, Nolu Chan (#120)
but it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moral super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, outlined in the Bill of Rights.
It most certainly did.
#123. To: SOSO, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#121)
--- it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moralistic super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights.
It most certainly did. --- SOSO
Thanks for your fiat opinion. - You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
#125. To: tpaine, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#123)
You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
Don't care. You may chose to continue to live in your fantasy world but most of us do understand what the Constitution means and fully understand that even the Bill of Rights can be modified or nullified if there are enough votes for that to happen. And there is not thing one that SOCTUS can do about it.
#126. To: SOSO, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#125)
--- most of us do understand what the Constitution means and fully understand that even the Bill of Rights can be modified or nullified if there are enough votes for that to happen.
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze?
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable.
And I'd bet you can't either...
#127. To: tpaine, SOSO, nolu chan, ALL (#126)
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why ...
No one will ever be able to explain anything to you, tpaine.
Some people are exactly who they are and despite being presented the truth, they will continue to believe what they want to believe….you are one of those people.
I’ve seen many people who don’t change and they always get left behind. Smart people learn things, so they change their minds. Only stupid people never change their minds. ~ Those were the recent words spoken by Donald Trump.
Your have an inherent desire to be right. You have an overwhelmingly strong will to always be correct and to prove your are smart….to show that you “know” the Constitution.
There is that little something inside you that refuses to see when your are “wrong”….it will forever hold you back from learning, growing, and ultimately having a correctly formed and educated opinion.
The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. ~ Leonardo da Vinci
I’m done here.
#128. To: Gatlin (#127) (Edited)
I’m done here.
I wouldn't even waste my time starting with him.
Why beat your head on the tpaine brick wall by arguing with someone that asks this... "Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority".... and willingly lives in a nazi state of Kookifornia... and paying that tyrannical state some of the highest taxes for the chains he wears.
Replies to Comment # 128.
#132. To: GrandIsland (#128) (Edited)
I’m done here.
I wouldn't even waste my time starting with him.
Why beat your head on the tpaine brick wall by arguing with someone that asks this... "Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority".... and willingly lives in a nazi state of Kookifornia... and paying that tyrannical state some of the highest taxes for the chains he wears.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 128.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]