No Amendment safe

Originally posted by amannion

So, if an amendment is irrelevant, then what's wrong with doing away with it?

Nothing is wrong with it, that's why the constitution can be AMENDED. You want to repeal the second amendment? Do it by passing another amendment.

Originally posted by amannion
Isn't the purpose of a constitutional amendment to make the constitution maintain its relevance?
So, if an amendment is irrelevant, then what's wrong with doing away with it?
These US ammendments seem to be treated like holy texts - they must be maintained at all costs. I would've thought that the constitution and its amendments were simply useful working documents for a nation.

they protect us from the lawyers.

Originally posted by rookedpawn
Nothing is wrong with it, that's why the constitution can be AMENDED. You want to repeal the second amendment? Do it by passing another amendment.

I don't want to repeal any amendment - I'm Australian, so it's irrelevant to me.
I'm just interested in the way many seem to see these statements as somehow sacrosanct - and any efforts made to make them relevant, sacreligious.

Originally posted by amannion
I don't want to repeal any amendment - I'm Australian, so it's irrelevant to me.
I'm just interested in the way many seem to see these statements as somehow sacrosanct - and any efforts made to make them relevant, sacreligious.

It's the same reason why you recognize the Queen and we don't.

Originally posted by rookedpawn
It's the same reason why you recognize the Queen and we don't.

Not sure I see the link there. I don't recognise the Queen and would be more than happy to see her gone as Head of State.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
If the courts can gut the Second Amendment as they've done in cities like Washington, D.C.; New York, Chicago and San Francisco, can they also gut the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?

Well, they "gutted" the Constitution in the first place by Amending it...

Originally posted by rookedpawn
What is there to dispute? "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed".

well armed militia means well armed militia also. I think the right to bear arms applies to the citizenry. But I can see how one could read it to mean only a militia has that right--and defining militia IS disputable.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
well armed militia means well armed militia also. I think the right to bear arms applies to the citizenry. But I can see how one could read it to mean only a militia has that right--and defining militia IS disputable.

It seems pretty clear cut to me. Militias are a lot like gangs, but are better armed and exist where police presence is weak. They don't necessarily prey on the citizens either.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
well armed militia means well armed militia also. I think the right to bear arms applies to the citizenry. But I can see how one could read it to mean only a militia has that right--and defining militia IS disputable.

It says well-ordered militia, not well-armed. That leaves out gangs and what not.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
If the courts can gut the Second Amendment as they've done in cities like Washington, D.C.; New York, Chicago and San Francisco, can they also gut the 13th Amendment ban on slavery?

Let's think: Washington, D.C. passes a law allowing limited slavery within the district which the courts uphold.

What is it, science fiction week, this week?

Originally posted by spruce112358
It says well-ordered militia, not well-armed. That leaves out gangs and what not.

I think gangs have become more organized than you think.

It says well-regulated, actually.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think gangs have become more organized than you think.

It says well-regulated, actually.

Yes. The statement makes the following assmuption: that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

And what is a militia? It is an armed force that is NOT part of the government apparatus -- not the army, not the police. It is people with guns.

The framers, who were right on so many other things, thought that Ordinary People With Guns -- forming some sort of group -- were critical for a free state.

They did not say, "free to carry guns on your person," or "free to wave guns around in public."

They said -- fundamentally -- that the Government itself needs to have a check on its power. A basic check. Something so fundamental that it renders it suicidal for the Government to EVER suspend the Constitution and rule by fiat.

Guns. In the hands of citizens. Necessary for a free state. That's what it says.

They were pretty smart, the framers. Maybe they didn't get everything exactly right. But they said we can keep weapons in our homes -- out of the government's reach -- for a REASON.

Keep 'em locked up if you want, for safety. Don't go hunting if you don't want. And they are not there for burglars, although they might be handy under the right circumstances -- but rarely.

Guns are there to keep the government honest. Period.