A constitutional question


You first must know the persons history to to know were he is coming from.Books have been written on the history of the Constitution.


You are correct and I have read many of them. I find myself agreeing with Ishi however. No matter the intent, if it's not written into the Constitution how is it binding? It's much like a verbal contract, with no witnesses it's left up to a judge to determine validity.
 

kwo51

New member
Ok if it had been written that we should never exceed 8 mikes a hour because it is very dangerous in a buggy. They could only relate to what the knew. The things that were obvious to them then may not apply now. Just a thought.
 
Ok if it had been written that we should never exceed 8 mikes a hour because it is very dangerous in a buggy. They could only relate to what the knew. The things that were obvious to them then may not apply now. Just a thought.

Don't really know what your getting at, but if your referring to the forefathers not knowing about future changes your probably correct. However, they did know about criminals and could have written something into the Constitution concerning their rights or removal thereof. I believe the "intent" was there but if it's not written it's then left up to judges.
 

ishi

New member
Exactly, Ronwill. Criminals existed back then as well.

But let's say for the sake of argument there's a case where a portion of the constitution is rendered obsolete or even harmful by the unforeseen advance of technology. The correct remedy would not be for the supreme court to rule that the section is invalid because of the lack of foresight of its' authors.

Rather, the correct remedy is for our sluggish democracy to use the facilities given us to change the constitution so that it is in line with the current day. Every time any part of the constitution is ignored, shunted aside, or interpreted away, the entire document is weakened. That's something we can't allow to happen, because the Constitution is all that stands in the way between democracy and tyranny.
 
Exactly, Ronwill. Criminals existed back then as well.

But let's say for the sake of argument there's a case where a portion of the constitution is rendered obsolete or even harmful by the unforeseen advance of technology. The correct remedy would not be for the supreme court to rule that the section is invalid because of the lack of foresight of its' authors.

Rather, the correct remedy is for our sluggish democracy to use the facilities given us to change the constitution so that it is in line with the current day. Every time any part of the constitution is ignored, shunted aside, or interpreted away, the entire document is weakened. That's something we can't allow to happen, because the Constitution is all that stands in the way between democracy and tyranny.

Agreed, but when you start messing with Constitutional changes great care must be taken. What if some group was succesful in getting it written that "assault" weapons were not covered and are banned?
 

ishi

New member
This is a good point, Ronwill, and not one I've seen yet brought up on a gun forum. First I'd like to point out that modifying the Constitution is hard enough so that no small special interest group would be able to modify it easily. It takes overwhelming support to make a new constitutional amendment, and I don't think that the 2nd Amendment will ever be modified in any legal way.

That said, this hypothetical amendment brings us to a philosophical crossroads. The answer depends on whether you think the RKBA (or any right enjoyed by americans) is derived from a social contract (the Constitution) or are instead bequeathed by a divine entity ("god-given" rights).

A person who adheres to the social contract (strict Constitutionalists) would probably accept that the principle of democracy had been upheld, and that even though he disagrees with the result, he'd probably accept it.

A person who believes that the Bill of Rights is merely an imperfect restatement of rights given by God would probably reject the result as invalid.
 
Last edited:
That said, this hypothetical amendment brings us to a philosophical crossroads. The answer depends on whether you think the RKBA (or any right enjoyed by americans) is derived from a social contract (the Constitution) or are instead bequeathed by a divine entity ("god-given" rights).

A person who adheres to the social contract (strict Constitutionalists) would probably accept that the principle of democracy had been upheld, and that even though he disagrees with the result, he'd probably accept it.

A person who believes that the Bill of Rights is merely an imperfect restatement of rights given by God would probably reject the result as invalid.

Valid or not, should a change be made of that nature many would simply obey because they are law abiding citizens (California is a case in point with their vague list of illegal guns). Those that didn't would have the strong-arm of the law coming after them and most likely be forced to comply. While I honestly don't believe enough states would vote to make a change of that nature (at least not now), I do believe the possibility exists.
 

robiewan

New member
Rights

The truth of the matter is that while imprisoned, and until any set probationary period expires, a felon loses his/her rights. In effect they are subject to being slaves (per the constitution). Once the felon has been released and their mandated sentence is over, those rights are supposed to be restored. This was well understood up until the early 30's. When a prisoner was released from prison even their weapons were returned to them as it was well known that not doing so denied the individuals right to self defense.
A person who has done their time is supposed to be reinstated as a member of the community in good standing, as they have fulfilled, or completed their sentencing. Denying this not only violates their freedom, which we would hope they would have by now earned, it also denies our constitution.
Personally I am for the death penalty as far as certain felonies are concerned, such as rape and murder, and therefore there ought to never be a parole of these individuals. But alas, the way this country is set up even these malignant tumors of society are able to be released in many states, after serving time. I don't agree with it, but our laws say this is ok, therefore I must render obedience to that law and hope that these individuals really were "reformed' and don't get out just to repeat their reprehensible behavior of the past.
If nothing else, this is a very good reason to always go armed. I would rather be able to defend myself and my family than to be assailed or lose my life to one of these individuals.
 

ishi

New member
Valid or not, should a change be made of that nature many would simply obey because they are law abiding citizens (California is a case in point with their vague list of illegal guns). Those that didn't would have the strong-arm of the law coming after them and most likely be forced to comply. While I honestly don't believe enough states would vote to make a change of that nature (at least not now), I do believe the possibility exists.

You're right, that's probably the case. At least in this hypothetical situation the Constitution itself would be the law the citizen is obeying, instead of the situation now, where citizens are obliged to obey laws that are unconstitutional.
 

kwo51

New member
We are bound by the gun. Luckly we still have ours,But is resistance futal. Luckly in florida we still have chad.
 

mot mayhem

New member
Kwo51, your dry sense of humor may not be recognized by some but I find it amusing. :)

agreed !

Now, from what I have been gathering just lurking through most of this is :

The constitution/amendments/BOR are LAW. If you look at changing just one part of it, and remove it. That is to me saying that you know more, and have a better understanding than those who actually wrote it.

As much as I hate all of the freedom of speech ( and I really do ! ), it is still a freedom that we have in this country, and that our families have fought to preserve all these years.

But, such as in the speech issue - it is MY OPINION !!!!! If it bothers me, then that is me. Statistically, there are even the same type of dregs in that crowd ( probably moreso than we realize), but how is it they have a louder voice to keep that freedom than we do? Is it d/t the fact that art cannot kill? .. but "guns" can?

I feel that it is bad, and the future of my unborn child will be more negatively affected by freedom of speech, than RKBA. But, they don't seem to care about that, do they?

I am sorry for ranting, I could probably go on. At least in my thought process, I ask myself - (all kidding aside) - "What do they have going for them more than we do that thier lives go on, unopposed?" What do we have to do to gain a stronger voice? We have the numbers, why not the influence? And I may have hit the nail on the head right there. Do we need to do a better job standing together in the voting process? Is THAT our weak link? Not looking at the large picture, and dividing our forces at the poll?

That, ...... and the fact less children are being taught the values,respect, and responsibilities of gun ownership. When did this all change? What happenned to change it? How can we get back to that point again, and reverse it?

One of my friends who is a youth pastor told me once - " If you make a change in your life, and it does not seem for the better, try going back to that last point, re-evaluate, and re-choose. Maybe God is trying to tell you something."

Thanks for "listening" .................. mot
 
agreed !

Now, from what I have been gathering just lurking through most of this is :

The constitution/amendments/BOR are LAW. If you look at changing just one part of it, and remove it. That is to me saying that you know more, and have a better understanding than those who actually wrote it.

As much as I hate all of the freedom of speech ( and I really do ! ), it is still a freedom that we have in this country, and that our families have fought to preserve all these years.

But, such as in the speech issue - it is MY OPINION !!!!! If it bothers me, then that is me. Statistically, there are even the same type of dregs in that crowd ( probably moreso than we realize), but how is it they have a louder voice to keep that freedom than we do? Is it d/t the fact that art cannot kill? .. but "guns" can?

I feel that it is bad, and the future of my unborn child will be more negatively affected by freedom of speech, than RKBA. But, they don't seem to care about that, do they?

I am sorry for ranting, I could probably go on. At least in my thought process, I ask myself - (all kidding aside) - "What do they have going for them more than we do that thier lives go on, unopposed?" What do we have to do to gain a stronger voice? We have the numbers, why not the influence? And I may have hit the nail on the head right there. Do we need to do a better job standing together in the voting process? Is THAT our weak link? Not looking at the large picture, and dividing our forces at the poll?

That, ...... and the fact less children are being taught the values,respect, and responsibilities of gun ownership. When did this all change? What happenned to change it? How can we get back to that point again, and reverse it?

One of my friends who is a youth pastor told me once - " If you make a change in your life, and it does not seem for the better, try going back to that last point, re-evaluate, and re-choose. Maybe God is trying to tell you something."

Thanks for "listening" .................. mot

Mot Mayhem you could not be more correct, however, all rights are intertwined. Lose one and lose all. That's why we must protect all of them, especially the 2A.
 

mot mayhem

New member
Lets hope He is listening.

I pray that HE is....

{{ Mot Mayhem you could not be more correct, however, all rights are intertwined. Lose one and lose all. That's why we must protect all of them, especially the 2A. }}

Yes, I understand they all are. And that's why we SHOULD fight to preserve them. There are other groups out there defending other rights. This is our battle.

We just need people that will defend them ALL in the higher ranks. I guess that is where our voice in November always needs to be united. As individuals, and a as country.
 
I pray that HE is....

{{ Mot Mayhem you could not be more correct, however, all rights are intertwined. Lose one and lose all. That's why we must protect all of them, especially the 2A. }}

Yes, I understand they all are. And that's why we SHOULD fight to preserve them. There are other groups out there defending other rights. This is our battle.

We just need people that will defend them ALL in the higher ranks. I guess that is where our voice in November always needs to be united. As individuals, and a as country.

Trust me, I am listening. I also couldn't agree more, we must stand as one and be very verbal about our desires. I am not a one issue voter, however, the 2A is high priority when it comes to selecting a representative. I still say if you fight for one right, you fight for all rights. I study all candidates closely and vote appropriately. I also choose the one closest to my beliefs that has the best chance of winning.
 

kwo51

New member
No I know for a fact he is living in Georgia.I also choose the one closest to my beliefs that has the best chance of winning. Thats why I did not vote for mickey mouse I was afarid he would win,and he is a little goofey
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,685
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top