(August 28, 2015 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our amendments can't -remove- a right.  Doesn't work like that.

Why not? 

Quote: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.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution

 With the exception of the states being equally represented in the Senate, I don't anything about not amending away rights.

(August 28, 2015 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our amendments can't -remove- a right.  Doesn't work like that.  You're asking americans to say "Fuck your constitution", "to hell with your rule of law", "tough shit", etc.  Pretty sure we don't have to do that in order to address our problem, and we can't do that anyway......so I guess that's a bullet dodged.

Don't give me this horseshit. At the same time your constitution said "all men are created equal" the founding fathers owned slaves. 

So fuck yeah it can be changed. It's not a holy tablet for fuck sake.

And you can be pretty sure all you want, hasn't done you well so far.

(August 28, 2015 at 9:01 am)Jenny A Wrote: Why not? 

Quote: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.

And that's the way it works with most constitutional nations. When two thirds of the lawmakers are in agreement, they can change the constitution. To my knowledge, the last time this was necessary in my country, was when we joined the EU in 1995.

(August 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 27, 2015 at 8:18 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Back to the topic at hand, I received my first conspiracy theory for this incident. It had to be faked, because the woman didn't die immediately.

I've been off FB since then. I can't handle the twattery.

Yeah, the shooter is now in the witness protection program and the woman was wearing a bullet-proof vest.  The incident was staged to rile up the control freaks to demand the confiscation of people's guns.

Don't be a bloody douchechopter.

(August 27, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Share that conspiracy theory you saw with me, Summer?  Curiosity. I like to stay abreast of general paranoia.

It was on a private group. She thinks that just because the first woman "didn't see" the shooter at first and also didn't die on the first bullet then it's a made up event. She also denies Sandy Hook. I'm about fucking over this planet.

Also there was another shooting last night. In GA. On a college campus. Fucking hell.

(August 28, 2015 at 9:01 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our amendments can't -remove- a right.  Doesn't work like that.

Why not? 

Quote: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.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution

 With the exception of the states being equally represented in the Senate, I don't anything about not amending away rights.

We can amend, we cannot remove - as your quote explains very specifically.  The practical effect of that amendment may be equal to removing something, when it is, we say that the amendment has "repealed" something. We can certainly come up with an amendment which has the practical effect of removing a right, but we cannot simply remove it - we can't just erase it from the document.  We can't say "fuck your 2nd amendment", which is what was proposed.

(August 28, 2015 at 9:12 am)abaris Wrote: And that's the way it works with most constitutional nations. When two thirds of the lawmakers are in agreement, they can change the constitution. To my knowledge, the last time this was necessary in my country, was when we joined the EU in 1995.

But not quite the way it works in the U.S.  it takes two thirds of the members of Congress to propose an amendment.  AFTER that the amendment must be ratified by three quarters of the states.  There's a reason the U.S. Constitution changes less frequently than that of most other nations.

(August 28, 2015 at 9:02 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our amendments can't -remove- a right.  Doesn't work like that.  You're asking americans to say "Fuck your constitution", "to hell with your rule of law", "tough shit", etc.  Pretty sure we don't have to do that in order to address our problem, and we can't do that anyway......so I guess that's a bullet dodged.

Don't give me this horseshit. At the same time your constitution said "all men are created equal" the founding fathers owned slaves. 

So fuck yeah it can be changed. It's not a holy tablet for fuck sake.

And you can be pretty sure all you want, hasn't done you well so far.

We didn't live up to our word, surprise surprise...but that has nothing to do with whether or not we can simply strike it from the document. You're way out in left field on this one man. Of -course- it can be (and has been) changed, but we didn't change that part in any case, we simply started to live up to it (a little better than before). The manner available to us to change the document does not include -removal- of it's contents. We can amend, we cannot say "nope, 2nd amendment doesn't exist anymore, rights gone". We can modify that right, we can constrict it, we can add layers to it....but it's going to be hard to do with that one. I think we will, eventually, and it's not something I'm personally opposed to. When we do, however, I insist that whatever amendment we make be -well- argued and -well- grounded in reality.....and right now, I don't know that I can trust either side of the debate to come up that sort of amendment. Amending the constitution for the sake of amending the constitution seems like a poor plan, to me.

(August 28, 2015 at 10:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: We can amend, we cannot remove - as your quote explains very specifically.  The practical effect of that amendment may be equal to removing something, when it is, we say that the amendment has "repealed" something. We can certainly come up with an amendment which has the practical effect of removing a right, but we cannot simply remove it - we can't just erase it from the document.  We can't say "fuck your 2nd amendment", which is what was proposed.

Then you're being a pedantic knobhead. You know exactly what I was saying, you just choose to be a one-upper and make out like I've missed a trick with your constitution when instead you actually fully acknowledge that in effect it is subject to change.

(August 28, 2015 at 9:02 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(August 28, 2015 at 8:53 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our amendments can't -remove- a right.  Doesn't work like that.  You're asking americans to say "Fuck your constitution", "to hell with your rule of law", "tough shit", etc.  Pretty sure we don't have to do that in order to address our problem, and we can't do that anyway......so I guess that's a bullet dodged.

Don't give me this horseshit. At the same time your constitution said "all men are created equal" the founding fathers owned slaves. 

So fuck yeah it can be changed. It's not a holy tablet for fuck sake.

And you can be pretty sure all you want, hasn't done you well so far.

Actually, it's not the Constitution that states "all men are created equal"; it is the Declaration of Independence. The DOC doesn't really have any force of law here.

(August 28, 2015 at 10:14 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Actually, it's not the Constitution that states "all men are created equal"; it is the Declaration of Independence. The DOC doesn't really have any force of law here.

Yeah, true. My bad.

My sentiment remains as valid though.