Here come the anti gun people.......

[HawgStalker]

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

This, pcuser, will never legitimately happen regarding the second amendment. You will never disarm law abiding Americans. I know your ideology requires it's civilians to be fully submissive to it's government rulers, and that my friend, will never happen in America. Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around. As a matter of fact, prohibition is a great example of just that, worked out great didn't it? Now how do you suppose it would work out regarding a civilians right to protect his life and freedoms against an armed gang or a tyrannical, totalitarian government? Are you going to be one of those people going door to door and demanding their firearms? I didn't think so.

I assure you the founders would never agree to disarming the American people. Revisionist much user?

Ditto to that HW... These liberals NEVER get ALL the facts before they spout off at the mouth!!!

Some things will NEVER change.......

[pcuser]

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

This, pcuser, will never legitimately happen regarding the second amendment. You will never disarm law abiding Americans. I know your ideology requires it's civilians to be fully submissive to it's government rulers, and that my friend, will never happen in America. Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around. As a matter of fact, prohibition is a great example of just that, worked out great didn't it? Now how do you suppose it would work out regarding a civilians right to protect his life and freedoms against an armed gang or a tyrannical, totalitarian government? Are you going to be one of those people going door to door and demanding their firearms? I didn't think so.

I assure you the founders would never agree to disarming the American people. Revisionist much user?

Do you even read what I write? I think you just react to my userid... You and others of your ilk have a bad habit of making ill-considered sweeping generalizations without thinking. I am not suggesting we can remove the second amendment. I'm not even convinced that would be a good thing. However, you state "The majority does not have the power to remove rights from the minority…and some rights are unalienable, meaning they are not in the purview of governments." You have the Constitution confused with the Declaration. The Declaration uses the term "unalienable Rights". The government only exists by the will of the majority. The government, voted into being by that will can vote without input from the people to change the Constitution. I didn't say it was easy, only that it can be done. That's what I pointed out. You further state "I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another's opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me. You don’t have a say in whether I have free speech or the right of self-determination. It was a violent revolution that put the government out of the “granting rights” business. It will take another such action to change that." As I said, slavery and prohibition took away basic rights of others regardless of their opinions about those rights. You try to conflate my statements as suggestive of what you believe I'm saying as opposed to what I actually say. Furthermore, you know little about my ideology. The very notion of civilians being submissive to their government rulers is offensive to me and most people in this country. Your comment about my being a revisionist is hyperbole of the highest order. Try thinking before spouting off. It will stand you in good stead if done correctly.

[pcuser]

Ditto to that HW... These liberals NEVER get ALL the facts before they spout off at the mouth!!!

Some things will NEVER change.......

I suggest you read the previous post. It will explain that I have all the facts and I don't spout of at the mouth. What never seems to change is your ability to read information and not understand what you read. Perhaps some more remedial education would help with that...

[Lady Quagga]

The ability to change the Constitution is written into it by the founders. Saying what you believe has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to change the Constitution. Most would argue that slavery always is and was "unconstitutional". Yet it was written into the Constitution by the founders. The founders understood that times change and sometimes necessitate changes to the Constitution.

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

[...]

Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents modification - or outright repeal - of the Second Amendment. I don't believe either is likely to happen anytime soon, but the possibility exists.

Pcuser's reference to prohibition and slavery are actually quite relevant. At any given time - past, present, or future - our society may deem it fit to modify the Constitution, effectively eliminating the rights of all (or a certain class of) citizens. The compromise of slavery - in which blacks had absolutely no control over their government - was a conscious decision made by our Founding Fathers. A nation which could allow such a thing to occur - to the cost of the lives of 750,000 of it's own citizens - could certainly allow the curtailing of its citizen's gun rights.

[HawgZWylde]

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents modification - or outright repeal - of the Second Amendment. I don't believe either is likely to happen anytime soon, but the possibility exists.

Pcuser's reference to prohibition and slavery are actually quite relevant. At any given time - past, present, or future - our society may deem it fit to modify the Constitution, effectively eliminating the rights of all (or a certain class of) citizens. The compromise of slavery - in which blacks had absolutely no control over their government - was a conscious decision made by our Founding Fathers. A nation which could allow such a thing to occur - to the cost of the lives of 750,000 of it's own citizens - could certainly allow the curtailing of its citizen's gun rights.

I didn't say that Quagga. I clearly showed the only way our constitution can be modified or amended. What I am saying is it will not happen regarding specifically the 2nd amendment. It would be a huge mistake and would just provoke a civil war as Americans will not go for it...

As far as ending slavery, that was a human civil rights issue, not the same as the right to defend oneself and fellow Americans against a tyrannical government. That applies to Americans of all cultures, as I stated. At a minimum, half this nation will not turn in their firearms, they will have to be taken by force, and I think you know as well as I do what the results of that action would be...

[Lady Quagga]

I didn't say that Quagga. I clearly showed the only way our constitution can be modified or amended. What I am saying is it will not happen regarding specifically the 2nd amendment. It would be a huge mistake and would just provoke a civil war as Americans will not go for it...

As far as ending slavery, that was a human civil rights issue, not the same as the right to defend oneself and fellow Americans against a tyrannical government. That applies to Americans of all cultures, as I stated. At a minimum, half this nation will not turn in their firearms, they will have to be taken by force, and I think you know as well as I do what the results of that action would be...

There is no guarantee that any portion of the Constitution cannot and would not be repealed given the right set of circumstances. While it may not be likely now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be likely in the future.

I would ask slaves if they felt their situation in life was sanctioned by a tyrannical government. I'd argue their rights were no less important than those afforded to you by the Second Amendment.

[City Dad]

I think that anyone who is truly concerned about their right to the access of firearms should do their best to not look like an idiot - which seems to be difficult these days. One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government. Google "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how George and the boys felt about that.

If fact, the whole argument that a 21st century American requires a standing militia to battle tyranny is utterly laughable. Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

So, Big-Shooters, please, please do yourself a favor and consider a respectful silence for the moment.

I'm just sayin...

[Lady Quagga]

I think that anyone who is truly concerned about their right to the access of firearms should do their best to not look like an idiot - which seems to be difficult these days. One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government. Google "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how George and the boys felt about that.

If fact, the whole argument that a 21st century American requires a standing militia to battle tyranny is utterly laughable. Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

A perfectly valid argument, CD.

So, Big-Shooters, please, please do yourself a favor and consider a respectful silence for the moment.

I'm just sayin...

Now here is where you start to lose me. As a "big-shooter", do you believe it is reasonable for me to remain silent when those opposed to "big-shooters" are actively engaged in taking the right/privilege away from me?

[seal]

Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

I had a similar thought. Guns vs. jets, missiles all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, the logic kind of didn't make sense, basically what good would guns do anyway?

But then I thought about Syria, seems the rebels over there were way overpowered but with guts and GUNS they seem to be doing pretty damn good. So kind of screws with your logic a bit doesn't it? Oh and possibly this also would explain why the "big shooters" don't wish to give up on their more powerful weapons, gives substance to the argument that those weapons are necessary for average citizens to own.

[DarkShadow]

It's really telling that the poll is either, 'everyone is given a gun at birth,' to 'nobody ever can own a gun ever or else they get shot.'

Yes, gun issues are black and white issues, and major progress will be made when there are only two options to choose from. Yes, it's either "yes" or "no," take a choice because there are no gray areas.