The only law that will disarm criminals, is a TOTAL BAN, followed by confiscation

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand your point if we're talking about an amendment but what if there isn't an amendment? How about an ammo ban or some sort of gun ban enacted through executive fiat or legislation not involving the amendment process? It doesn't even have to have anything to do with guns, it could be something else seen as an encroachment.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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 right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

"shall not be infringed." ----TYR

[indago]

"shall not be infringed." ----TYR

Acknowledged, barring a new amendment repealing it...

[Motown]

I think sfg's point was premised on Amendments so I don't think that goes anywhere. But to your EO/legislation question any EO fiat is subject to underlying legislation and new legislation are both subject to Constitutional muster both of which should be losers to the Second. If it's not then of course we have other problems. Either way states are still invested in the Union.

You're right, I also assumed he was talking about amendments. I'm assuming the 2nd Amendment won't be amended using the process currently in place. I'm also assuming the Democrats and even some Republicans would like to change the 2nd Amendment in the worst way, so bad they can taste it, along with some other things. I think a crisis would go a long way to helping that happen and I wouldn't expect the people who want the crisis to act in any way to prevent the crisis.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Acknowledged, barring a new amendment repealing it...

Acknowledged, THAT NO DAMN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY A LOUSY PIECE OF SHIT TRAITOR LIKE OBAMA SHALL VOID OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!
Should in outright treason issue one -he is to be removed for his treason by any means possible!

And far more will choose that path than the dems/leftists/libs and the other ffing traitors to this nation think possible..

Every honorable ex-military will side against the stinking traitor obama as will millions more.
Every Marine IMHO WILL SIDE AGAINST HIM... FOR THEY MORE THAN ANY OTHER WILL ADHERE TO THEIR CODE.. --Tyr

[fj1200]

^Sorry, but that just makes you look silly.

[fj1200]

You're right, I also assumed he was talking about amendments. I'm assuming the 2nd Amendment won't be amended using the process currently in place. I'm also assuming the Democrats and even some Republicans would like to change the 2nd Amendment in the worst way, so bad they can taste it, along with some other things. I think a crisis would go a long way to helping that happen and I wouldn't expect the people who want the crisis to act in any way to prevent the crisis.

I don't see that going anywhere. Most state legislatures are Republican controlled and I don't see that changing anytime soon let alone 2/3 of the House and Senate coming out with a proposal.

[Motown]

Acknowledged, THAT NO DAMN EXECUTIVE ORDER BY A LOUSY PIECE OF SHIT TRAITOR LIKE OBAMA SHALL VOID OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!
Should in outright treason issue one -he is to be removed for his treason by any means possible!

And far more will choose that path than the dems/leftists/libs and the other ffing traitors to this nation think possible..

Every honorable ex-military will side against the stinking traitor obama as will millions more.
Every Marine IMHO WILL SIDE AGAINST HIM... FOR THEY MORE THAN ANY OTHER WILL ADHERE TO THEIR CODE.. --Tyr

You shouldn't assume veterans will all side with you on this. This is Point of no Return stuff here and some would side against you just to prevent the chaos this would cause and then find another way to deal with it.

[Motown]

I don't see that going anywhere. Most state legislatures are Republican controlled and I don't see that changing anytime soon let alone 2/3 of the House and Senate coming out with a proposal.

Excellent point, I don't see it happening today. The GOP would never be able to figure out a way to hide behind them Dems on this right now at the state level.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You shouldn't assume veterans will all side with you on this. This is Point of no Return stuff here and some would side against you just to prevent the chaos this would cause and then find another way to deal with it.

You are free to choose and seek whatever solution you think appropriate amigo.-

Well, I did add in the qualifier= "honorable"......
And it was given as an after the fact statement-- meaning position to take when/if the bastard makes good on his deeply held traitorous desires..
Additionally, I feel sad for anybody too damn stupid to not know by now what a damn traitor and outright fraud the son of a bitch truly is!
Let him stand in my yard , spouting his treasonous shit to me and I'll spit in his face come hell or high water. . ff him!! and the damn horse he rode in on.. I don't play.. A fact.. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^Sorry, but that just makes you look silly.

Said, while you ignorantly fail to grasp your right to say that, believe that is insured by the first amendment and even more so by the second amendment!!!!
I am now very sure that you are far younger than me and a gullible and ignorant product of the liberally destroyed public education system..... Or , if thats not so-- then a lib shill practicing its evil trade. --Tyr

[Gunny]

Certainly the process exists to give the feds a new power but that doesn't mean the specific action of allowing government to restrict the private citizen's possession and use of his/her personal arms, would be constitutionally legitimate.

The Constitution is predicated on certain incontrovertible and immutable tenets. An armed citizenry is certainly a fundamental tenet of the Republic established by the Constitution. Those foundational principles are permanent and unalterable by the governing structure created from them -- the child can not change its parents (see Marbury v Madison).

Additionally, many states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon Congress submitting a bill of rights with NC & RI withholding their signing outright (after Sept 29, 1789). Since each of those provisions were deemed vital to the original ratification, to revisit them now and extinguish the protections therein secured, could be argued to threaten the original ratification.

If any of the 10 stipulations that satisfied the original thirteen can be subject to modern revisiting and rescinding, certainly each state's assent to the original compact can be revisited and rescinded. Would the the Constitution remain in force if say five original states were to formally rescind their 1787-1789 ratification?

The problem is we have to live for however long while they just screw around with the process. Obama gets away with an Executive Order today, and it takes a decade to get overturned. The line-item veto didn't get to the Supreme Court until Clinton was out of office and the damage was done.

[Motown]

Well, I did add in the qualifier= "honorable"......

Tell me what you think 'honorable' means in this case.

[fj1200]

Said, while you ignorantly fail to grasp your right to say that, believe that is insured by the first amendment and even more so by the second amendment!!!!
I am now very sure that you are far younger than me and a gullible and ignorant product of the liberally destroyed public education system..... Or , if thats not so-- then a lib shill practicing its evil trade. --Tyr

Silly because you mindlessly blather the same lines over and over. With bold and all caps too.

And the more you keep talking the more ignorant you expose yourself to be. You hide behind ignorant proclamations that are untrue and irrelevant. I've never spoken against 2A, in fact have spoken for it very recently. Long live 2A.

I will accept your apology once proffered.