I don't think it's odd. Heck it's the law, and it even has a title: States' rights. I live in FL, and just because our neighbors in Alabama think about a certain issue one way doesn't mean we Floridians have to follow suit.
For example, we don't think inbreeding is a good idea.
The 2nd Amendment as ratified is one sentence. To be preamble it would need to consist of one or more sentences or paragraphs.
However I'm sure somebody wll pop up with the relevant judgements at some point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uG3uKABOE 9:40
Not a very good start when at about 38 seconds in the video states:
You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it
The kids in this shooting plus the many more before were all denied their basic human rights.
See...this attitude is why we decided not to be colonies anymore.
I'm sorry but since when was it a "human right" to own a gun?
You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it (and as we've all agreed that can be changed, although unlikely to be).
Not a very good start when at about 38 seconds in the video states:
"For the first time men enacted into law human rights not just Government given right"
I'm sorry but since when was it a "human right" to own a gun?
You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it (and as we've all agreed that can be changed, although unlikely to be).
From the UN (which the USA has signed up too let me remind you before anyone says "stuff the UN this is the USA")
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination."
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
The kids in this shooting plus the many more before were all denied their basic human rights .
See...this attitude is why we decided not to be colonies anymore.
We have a natural right to self defense. If that takes personal firearms to do that so be it. The Second Amendment as the rest of the Amendments are written into the COTUS to define what the fedgov cannot do or cannot take away. You anti-rights people just don't get it.
1) precisely why weapons suitable for use in a militia are the "right of the people" to keep and bear
2) the un if fill of crap and at no time will I be subject to the interpretation of some un bureaucrat
however there is also the phrase "well regulated" which suggests some form of discipline and possibly control over the type of arms that can be kept.
Apologies, there was me stating quire clearly that you do have a Constitutional right to bear Arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated Militia as per the 27 words contained in one sentence written 240 odd years ago.Never said anti-gun.
I 've also stated that your CO#onstituition also allows for amendments to be made via due process however the reality is that it.s almost impossible to do so.
How does that make me anti gun?
#confused
Never said anti-gun.
Again, you and many others misunderstand the COTUS and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not grant or guarantee us our rights. It stipulates and defines the limits of the fedgov. Our 'Rights' cannot be arbitrarily taken away...but they can be surrendered by and uneducated and misinformed populace.
I stand corrected, you said "Anti Rights"
which I'm not either, I have simply stated (on more than one occasion) that your Constitution does allow for those "rights" to be taken away by following due process.
As an interesting aside: What we are seeing here now is an unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) movement that is national but being carried out on the state level, in each state. There is virtually no chance of any federal firearms legislation, at least not anything substantial, being passed at this time by our fed gov't. But there is a national movement for that very thing, so what is actually happening is that individual states are rapidly, very rapidly, passing significant firearms legislation but only some of them, the typically 'anti- gun' states. It is a really strange result of our loose federation of states system that we have.
This is going to result in even increasing separation of groups of states along the overall conservative / liberal lines.
The only real downside is when a person who is an 'us' happens to be caught as a resident of a 'them' state (or vice- versa).
Back to your idea of altering the Constitution for a moment; yes, it is possible and has been done in the past but never for such fundamental things as already specified rights w/in the Constitution or existing Amendments. With the one glaring exception of prohibition but that was really just a bad idea being erased a mere 13 years after it was passed in teh first place. I do not believe we will see the removal or even alteration of any of the first ten Amendments (often called The Bill of Rights) in the foreseeable future.
Brian
I get that it's unlikely but some people need to accept that the mechanism is in place and that it could in theory be changed.
I believe (to summarise) one method is by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures" and then that a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)
As you say, there's a bit of a sea change at the moment with various states bringing in their own legislation and I'm sure people will be keeping count to see if the number of states starts to approach that critical mass required for a constitutional convention (33 from 49).
I <think> everyone 'gets it' and we know it can be changed. All I am saying is that it is not going to actually happen in the foreseeable future, at least not to the actual document and Bill of Rights (the Bill of Rights was actually part of the Constitution sent to the states and both were ratified together BTW; our southern states would not ratify the Constitution without the first ten Amendments and that was a wise policy indeed).
A method to add an amendment to our Constitution, and the only one to ever actually be used is: a bill is introduced to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A 'Super majority' of both houses must vote Yes on each bill. That is 75% or 3/4 of each house. (not bloody likely in your vernacular) Then, the amendment is passed onto each of "the several" states, and they must ratify it again by the 3/4 margin either through the state legislature of a specially convened ratification convention in each state. (not bloody likely.... squared)
In the past, the state ratification process was open- ended regarding time but for quite some time now, they have had an installed time- limit of seven years after which time they vaporize if not ratified. This is what happened to our Equal Rights Amendment.... it could not reach the 38 state ratification requirement and so it just timed out.
There is just no possibility to alter the second Amendment through this process, again at least for the foreseeable future.
BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?
BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?