ta, that's pretty much what I said/thought
Typically this happens in individual states and never on a national level.
I believe that is correct. We cannot even vote on a national level for national things such as the office of the President. It is always 'the several states' that actually control our 'national' votes.
Brian
Ta,
maybe someone should Propose an Amendment
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.
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?
And fixing the electoral system would be hugely easier than altering any of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.....
Although it is possible, it is inconceivable that any admendment would ever pass that would interfere with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, that are practically part of the original document). Personally, I think that would indicate a total failure of the whole American experiment.
<snip>
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
How does that make me anti gun?
#confused
OFFTOPIC: The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself and so are, in reality, part of the Constitution, at least in my [unlearned] view and understanding.
Going by memory here: it was part of a deal between the northern and southern states to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Some very powerful Southerners (Virginians I believe) were opposed to the Constitution as written because there were no or insufficient guarantees in it to prevent the reforming of a monarchy, or to prevent a handful of heavily populated states (the northern states at that time) from gaining control of the entire federal gov't. An additional provision of this 'deal' was locating the capital of the US in the southern states as it was originally in New York (a northern state). The northern states would not agree to the 'southern state' placement, hence the creation of Washington, DC, which while an independent district of the US, was originally part of Virginia and clearly in "the south".
As any of this applies to the topic at hand: I think we can all agree, there will be no alteration of The Bill of Rights in the foreseeable future.
Brian
The reason we are reacting negatively is that you have essentially said the ONLY reason to have gun rights is to maintain militias. And that is not what the Amendment says (to those who understand the context of what was written).
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first sentence is not a directive nor a requirement for the second sentence. It is just a preamble that seeks to give a reason why the second sentence is so important. The key word here is "people." Not militia. "People" are all the citizens. Had they meant it otherwise, it might have been worded more like:"
"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you believe what I interpreted is what you said, then you believe that gun rights exist ONLY and SOLELY for militia use. And that is in direct conflict with the rights of individuals to be armed outside of a militia. And that is, most assuredly, an anti-gun-rights stance.
Let's be honest, nobody knows what was in the minds of the people who drew up the original US Constitution other than the words they left behind and they're open to interpretation.
If the same thing was drawn up today , in a world where public opinion and communications are so much different then would the wording have been made more precise? (although that leads to it's own problems)
Yes it may be classed as preamble but it sets the scene. It doesn't start off by saying " For the purposes of allowing home defence," or "For the purposes of preventing the Government suppressing the People,"
NB its not a separate sentence, its part of the bigger sentence as it is separated by a comma not a full stop (or period). The Second amendment is one sentence.
Agreed, many parts of the Constitution are vague, and many thing are simply not addressed by the Constitution at all (an entire area of study unto itself- what does it mean when something is [not in] the Constitution).
But the writers of the documents are well known by other writings, and I believe one can easily get a sense or overall feeling as to the intention of each section of those documents.
Spent this afternoon at my State House, 'standing up' for the cause regarding new bills being introduced into both houses (State Senate, State House of Representatives). Excellent Pro 2A (Pro- Second Amendment, in other words, pro- gun for those not in the US or familiar with the cryptic term) turnout, clogged up the works pretty well and several people involved told me the turnout was better than 10:1 on the pro- 2A side. We will see.....
Of course all this legislation is to limit / remove firearms in some way or another. It is now 6 March, closing in on four weeks since the FL school shootings and to the best of my knowledge, there has been no large scale, concerted effort to make public schools in the US any safer. Firearms legislation <may> work at some point in the future but limited access and screening of everyone entering a public school would ALREADY be working had there been a serious effort in that direction. And by serious, I mean federally sanctioned, federally posted guidelines on how to do it and federal direction and financial underwriting of such a thing. But here we are.....
Brian
March 20: "Good Guy with Gun Opened Fire on MD High School Shooter, Ended Threat"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/good-guy-gun-opened-fire-md-high-school-shooter-end-threat/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/shooting-at-great-mills-high-school-in-maryland-school-confirms.html
And then, the ultra-left CNN version; full of emotion, sad quotes, and the obligatory focus on how it is [supposedly] the 17th "shooting" this year [probably using their creative definitions], and student protests, cute catch phrases, calls to action, and all kinds of thing that have nothing to do with the story but everything to do with their "agenda spin":
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/
Didn't bother with NYT/Washing Post, but I would expect the same thing.
So you want the news report to duplicate a very clinical police report, without any human interest or background stuff. Breitbart was terse as per your specifications, but apparently the Fox News report did not get the memo. Oops.....
...and wtf is a 'resource' officer? Are they so PC they won't say cop or guard or armed hall monitor?