Well Sly, I am not sure you intended to come through as appearing so erratic in your thinking. But I will attempt to give you a little clarity. When I stated, I have never seen an amendment offered to justify any infringements on the right to bear arm, this is a fact. It has nothing to do with being fine with anything. But then if you wish to know what I am fine with in that regard, here it is. The right to bear arms should not be infringed unless it is agree to in the amendment process. However, in the list of possible exceptions in your list, this would be my take as of today, considering that it is my opinion from studying the history, that the 2nd amendment was in Madison's mind, participial justified, in the principle that all citizen in good standing have the right to defend themselves and those they protect with the force of arms when necessary. So, from that point, here is my take on each of your wanted exceptions to no infringement. Children Children are people that have the same rights as the rest of us. They do need our help in understanding these rights as well as our protection until they are able to do the protecting. This comes at differing ages with most, and it makes little sense to not allow a young woman or man the right to protect themselves until an arbitrary age, set by those that have an inordinate fear of weapons. Felons Felons are not citizens in good standing in society. They have forfeit many rights. When and if these rights are restored is a fair question for debate. illegals Illegals are not citizens in good standing in our society. And I do not believe the Constitution was ever intended to codify any rights to other persons in the world except for US Citizens in good standing. This one especially need to be understood, considering illegals like MS-13 members and other felons that enter our country with no vetting. Allowing them to be armed is mindless, likewise it is to allow them to be here or to enter the country. Contrary to the liberal thinking going on today, these buggers are the scum of the earth. I sort of wish more of the liberals would have an encounter up close and personal to get a proper feel for the situation. I did last year, thankfully I was adequately prepared for the encounter. However, not quite prepared for the results as presented to me by the police in that sanctuary city. The bottom line is, while they, (the police) did not hassle me about messing one of the gang members up. they did sort of protect them by telling me that I probably should stay out of their town, by restricting myself to the area of the county more appropriate for me, an adjacent town. The more white area was left unsaid.
That's not how it works. You don't need a constitutional amendment, and really @MarAzul, you should update your thinking because you always say this and it is factually and legally 100% incorrect. All fundamental rights -- like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and yes, guns - are not absolute. Peramaters around those rights and defining those rights, are legal, and do not need a constitutional amendment. That would be both silly and impossibly cumbersome. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. We all know that. It's illegal, even though you have a right to free speech. That wasn't done by amendment. Same thing.
By your definition. Precisely the point in my view. It is not suppose to be easy, certainly not by a simple majority. 51% of the people are nearly always ready to vote for the wrong thing, 67% almost never will.
Yep, that is the main function; Article. I. Section. 1. Page 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." They were just given a few constrains. A few examples; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" etc. Then one heavy fact; Article. II. Section. 1. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." No other office noted.
Right, so if congress makes a law, and SCOTUS decides it does not infringe upon constitutional rights, then no amendment is needed. barfo
I suspected you would take this shortcut. But you do realize it is hardly an act in good faith, since it was almost the first work of Congress to agree on the appropriate amendment process which does require a more strenuous process with a super majority requirement. Hoping for a sympathetic ear in the court, stacked or not is hardly operating in good faith. But I do note you have allies.
Do you think Congress should be allowed to make laws as long as they are not unconstitutional, yes or no? barfo
It is not often a question is answerable with only yes or no. I think Congress as the representatives of the people, should respect and follow Constitution faithfully while representing the interest of their people that selected them to be representatives in Congress as the Constitution provides.
Maybe the House but they created the Senate to look the other way no matter what a strong man President does and I must say they are doing an exceptional job.
