Do you take the same stance when gangsters order a hit in code words, or only turn a blind eye when Trump does it?
Oklahoma, I love this State.
- Thread starter Wallet
- Start date
Do you take the same stance when gangsters order a hit in code words, or only turn a blind eye when Trump does it?
The bill of rights get violated everyday. It depends on how much money you have, who your lawyer is and who appointed the judge on whether or not the bill of rights has any teeth.
I know that the entire bill of rights is made up of amendments, and theoretically it could be completely removed from the constitution. What I'm saying is that we should never accept that.
How would you feel if Trump garnered enough support to remove freedom of speech from the constitution so that he could control what the media says? Do you think people would accept that even if it was done in a legal way?
False equivalence. You can have a democracy without guns, but you cannot have one without free speech. Not all amendments were created equal.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/24/uttt-poll-voters-less-open-open-carry/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/573732/amp
https://everytown.org/press/new-pol...shoppers-want-an-end-to-open-carry-at-kroger/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/perspectives/walmart-cvs-open-carry-guns/index.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/573732/amp
https://everytown.org/press/new-pol...shoppers-want-an-end-to-open-carry-at-kroger/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/perspectives/walmart-cvs-open-carry-guns/index.html
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I know that the entire bill of rights could be removed from the constitution through a constitutional convention. But it's my opinion that the bill of rights is made up of immutable rights, and we shouldn't accept their removal even if the majority of the population support it. I hope I never see that happen.
They are rights, not inalienable rights, but rights that can be regulated, further defined and DENIED to people when the courts/government see fit. I can bore you with 125 years of SC history but it would go over most of your heads.
To overturn or remove an amendment would take such a long process that it would never happen, or if it did, it would truly be the will of the people given the ratification process that is required.
I am not addressing this fact pattern but those that keep proclaiming the 2d AMENDMENT is an absolute God given right that cannot be touched is missing the point (again 125 years of history proves otherwise).
So the back and forth over this is getting off the topic really.
Quoting random founding fathers who make a comment on their thoughts is kind of stupid too. In a legal case you don't quote before the judge what someone said as a post facto interpretation. Also the Constitution is not a codified law, it is a structure for the government and powers including limitations (i.e. Bill of Rights). Clarification and definitions in on going times is what the Courts and Congress deal with and will continue to deal with forever.
To overturn or remove an amendment would take such a long process that it would never happen, or if it did, it would truly be the will of the people given the ratification process that is required.
I am not addressing this fact pattern but those that keep proclaiming the 2d AMENDMENT is an absolute God given right that cannot be touched is missing the point (again 125 years of history proves otherwise).
So the back and forth over this is getting off the topic really.
Quoting random founding fathers who make a comment on their thoughts is kind of stupid too. In a legal case you don't quote before the judge what someone said as a post facto interpretation. Also the Constitution is not a codified law, it is a structure for the government and powers including limitations (i.e. Bill of Rights). Clarification and definitions in on going times is what the Courts and Congress deal with and will continue to deal with forever.
Yeah, Black_Hat, do tell us more about foreign malcontents.