The Constitution can be changed or amended even the Bill of Rights could be. It's all spelled out in Article V of the Constitution.
Article V | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Another poll. This one to change the 2nd amendment
- Thread starter doctorbossman
- Start date
The Constitution can be changed or amended even the Bill of Rights could be. It's all spelled out in Article V of the Constitution.
Article V | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
It should read: "Because the People are serfs and the government and its agents are the only individuals allowed to use deadly force, the power of the Federal and state governments over the People shall not be infringed." That's what I think they were looking for.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,720
- Likes
- 224
Voted. At times, I wish the Founding Fathers had written more directly and concisely. Compare US and Maine constitutions.
US Constitution
"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."
Maine: http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 16. To keep and bear arms.
"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." That's it. Done.
US Constitution
"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."
Maine: http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 16. To keep and bear arms.
"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned." That's it. Done.
Waste of time... Never happen..,
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk... Please excuse the brevity and auto corrected wrong words
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk... Please excuse the brevity and auto corrected wrong words
My understanding is that they are two separate clauses, one more or less giving the states/government the power to maintain a standing army, and the other stating that the ability of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Conflating the two clauses as having any bearing on each other is very common misreading, and one that the anti crowd seems to like to spout.
Voted![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Conflating the two clauses as having any bearing on each other is very common misreading, and one that the anti crowd seems to like to spout.
Voted
Who gives a shit? It's an internet poll for Christ's sake.
99% of the people voting "yes" have absolutely no idea how amendments are changed.
99% of the people voting "yes" have absolutely no idea how amendments are changed.
The polls are irrelevant. Who cares what the sheeple want? It's been . In court. Good luck getting it reversed.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
My understanding is that they are two separate clauses, one more or less giving the states/government the power to maintain a standing army, and the other stating that the ability of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Conflating the two clauses as having any bearing on each other is very common misreading, and one that the anti crowd seems to like to spout.
Voted
Your understanding is wrong.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with a standing army in any way.
I just found this thanks to the bump. It's over 6000 against. Even in Philly.
