Rongone wrote:

Interesting perceptions on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If these "rights" are somehow inherent and above the realm of possibility of change by "the government" or mortal men, why did the founding fathers have the foresight to realize the need for a methodology to adjust these documents, and the rights contained within, in the future due to different unforeseen circumstances the could arise?

It's not a "perception", it is an explanation of the foundational principle at issue.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people possessed before the establishment of the Constitution.  The people surrendered certain powers and assigned certain duties to government through the Constitution. 

All not surrendered is retained.

Just for arguments sake, I would say that the use of the Article V amendment process to rescind a right that is among those in the Bill of Rights, is illegitimate and threatens the entire compact.

Those provisions were demanded by the states who made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon having a bill of rights sent to them (with two refusing to sign).  For us, in our modern, enlightened condition to revoke what they considered a vital necessity, is the height of hubris and would amount to the ultimate ex post facto law.

Can you mention any instance where the amendment process has been used for the modification of "rights", to "take back" (LOL) a right granted by the document?  You speak as if this is the state of rights, that they are subject to such discretion and that this has in fact occurred before.

Like Just Fred, your peculiar framing of the discussion is what is the flawed perception.  You both view the Constitution as the source of the right to arms with the exercise of the right dependent upon, at a minimum, how we interpret the text of the Amendment (or it seems now, whether the words of the 2nd Amendment exist).

You really need to unlearn that . . .
 

How about a few words on how we might actually address the problems that we face?

I mean, it's all well and good to offer rote recitation of dogma about the constitution. But citing US Vs Twin City,
or Tom V Jerry, for that matter, doesn't do much to keep innocent people from having their lives tragically ended in a school, or cinema. As a matter of fact, it seems like an exercise in linquistics,  offered up as a justification for doing nothing, and a mere effort of distraction from the problem at hand.

BTW, I love (LOL) the argument of defending the second amendment, and when the questions about it get a bit too pointed, the smooth transition to, "Well the constitution doesn't confer the right to bear arms anyway. That existed before the constitution."
Are you suggesting that God wants us all to have AR-15s? 

Jeerleader wrote:

Rongone wrote:

Interesting perceptions on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If these "rights" are somehow inherent and above the realm of possibility of change by "the government" or mortal men, why did the founding fathers have the foresight to realize the need for a methodology to adjust these documents, and the rights contained within, in the future due to different unforeseen circumstances the could arise?

It's not a "perception", it is an explanation of the foundational principle at issue.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people possessed before the establishment of the Constitution.  The people surrendered certain powers and assigned certain duties to government through the Constitution. 

All not surrendered is retained.

Just for arguments sake, I would say that the use of the Article V amendment process to rescind a right that is among those in the Bill of Rights, is illegitimate and threatens the entire compact.

Those provisions were demanded by the states who made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon having a bill of rights sent to them (with two refusing to sign).  For us, in our modern, enlightened condition to revoke what they considered a vital necessity, is the height of hubris and would amount to the ultimate ex post facto law.

Can you mention any instance where the amendment process has been used for the modification of "rights", to "take back" (LOL) a right granted by the document?  You speak as if this is the state of rights, that they are subject to such discretion and that this has in fact occurred before.

Like Just Fred, your peculiar framing of the discussion is what is the flawed perception.  You both view the Constitution as the source of the right to arms with the exercise of the right dependent upon, at a minimum, how we interpret the text of the Amendment (or it seems now, whether the words of the 2nd Amendment exist).

You really need to unlearn that . . .
 

 

Funny you should mention Article 5 which says:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

So, the provision inserted into the constitution allowing for the necessary modifications as times change you consider to be "illegitimate and threatens the entire compact". Unfortunately, neither you nor anyone else gets to pick and choose based on their personal point of view which tenets are legitimate and subject to being obeyed.

Oh, by the way, I don't need to "unlearn" anything.

Words but no solutions. 

Sounds like our representatives in our government ! 
 

Goose wrote:

Perhaps, instead of the same same,  we could move the discussion towards solutions, as discussed in the essay that launched the thread.
Maybe having security, and metal detectors at the entrance to malls and theaters is a solution. 
Yes, it would be very expensive. But, such are the costs of having a heavily armed society where we make no effort to prevent the criminals and the insane from owning powerful weapons.

 

Security, metal detectors and the like are not solutions. They are stop gap measures that apply a band-aid to the real problem. Whether some folks want to admit it or not, one of the main root causes of gun violence in the U.S. Is the availability of lethal weaponry (some designed specifically for wartime applications), and the totally open access to those weapons by people with few real restrictions. We need to have a rational discussion in this country about this so-called freedom that allows unfettered access for anybody to lethal weapons, particularly guns & ammunition. For crying out loud, we have certain restrictions, such as age, ability (must pass a test), licensing, insurance, and penalties for mis-use to allow a person to operate a motor vehicle. We enforce restrictions on access to tobacco products and limit areas where they may be used. Why can't we have reasonable dialogue regarding guns when it comes to formulating rational guidelines and restrictions when it comes to guns? The answer to that question is money and the uncompromising influence of certain lobbying groups against any regulation on buying, selling, owning, and operating lethal weaponry, coupled with the spineless inaction of legislators who fear being labeled "unpatriotic" by those same groups.

Until that discussion takes place and an action plan is developed and enforced, the U.S. public will continue to live under the daily possibility of being caught in the crossfire of gun violence.