Search results for query: *

Pardon me if my ignorance is showing, but don't amendments, once ratified, become part of the Constitution, over-riding any previous applicable article in the Constitution?

There is a difference between what is in the constitution and operational law based on supreme court decisions.

I'm not sure that anyone here thinks it is likely to have all the laws abolished. But you did ask what we would like to see in place. Complete removal of all the (gun) laws is what some of us "would like to see in place".

In regard to compromising our rights away (if you really wanted to): The antis compromise by settling for some of what they want, with the opportunity to come back and get more later. The pros give up some of what they had with the opportunity to lose more later. If both sides agree that...

I can, by reading the constitution. The supremes don't always use the constitution to make their decisions. If they did we wouldn't have somue justices who are thought of as more constitutionalist than others.

You know, with that "knee problem" you have, you really should start using a cane:)

I would say that they definitely went to the wrong house.

No, they MUST not. They can be secured by each person, but in a societal setting, it is probably more efficient to form a government to secure those rights. That doesn't mean that we couldn't do it ourselves.

By the way, fiddletown, I am not the enemy.

It gets me tilting at windmills to get more of the country to actually pay attention to the constitution. Without that fight we may as well go back to the days of slavery and serfdom, bowing down to our lords and masters.

Unfortunately, in most of the decisions the Supremes make that go against the actual words of the constitution we can find that they did not actually use the actual words of the constitution. It's kind of like professional sports. The rules are there for anyone to read. People who don't care...

But, Hugh, it also does not say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the RKBA", so by not limiting which entity is not able to infringe, it means NO entity can infringe. When the Constitution (including amendments) means the states, it says states, when it means Congress, it says Congress...

What about it? More to the point, where is it? I could not find any such wording in the constitution. Please point me to the appropriate section.

Whether he has a valid permit and whether he had it with him is irrelevant, as he was open carrying, which is perfectly legal, with some specific limitations, none of which he appears to have violated. Red herring.

Wow, what a mindset. It's gotten so that anytime a law still allows us to do something, we treat that something as a "loophole", rather than as just the ability to continue doing that something. Again, Wow.

Heck, I wish I was that clever now.

It's not the trade that caused the deaths, it's the illegalization. If it was legal those problems would go away. Take the money out of drugs, you will take away the violence. We are driving the wrong behavior.

And while we are picking nits, there should be NO permits, nor shoud they be necessarry.

Only this time around it's more of "My candidate doesn't suck as bad as yours"

The title of the thread is "What if it was you?", thus thrusting the discussion into the theoretical realm.