Reporter/camera man murdered.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm trying to bring you to the ground, Napo.  No ones disputing that changes can be made. Ignoring the hilarity of a non-citizen dictating what changes to our constitution he would make......it;s just not going to happen the way you seem to be envisioning, for better -or- for worse. We don;t take that shit lightly, and if we can solve whatever it is we're looking to solve -without- an amendment, an amendment has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. If you think it would be -impossible- to fix our problem without an amendment, you've drank the koolaid. It might be expedient, but expedience isn't going to get an amendment ratified.

[Jenny A]

Why not? 


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 The practical effect of that amendment may be equal to removing something, when it is, we say that the amendment has "repealed" something.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.

Um no.  You said we couldn't amend to take away a right.  And we can in the manner you just suggested, we could pass an amendment repealing or drastically altering the 2nd Amendment.  If repealing isn't taking away, I don't what is.

----Practically it isn't going to happen because Congress isn't going to propose it and the states wouldn't ratify it if they did.

[Napoléon]

I'm trying to bring you to the ground, Napo.  No ones disputing that changes can be made.

Then what the fuck are you arguing about? All I said in the first place was that you could make changes, and you went off on some diatribe about saying "fuck the constitution".

Ignoring the hilarity of a non-citizen dictating what changes to our constitution he would make

I'm not dictating shit you dickwad. I'm just telling you what I think makes sense to do after being asked my opinion. Don't straw man me and don't even fucking go anywhere near the realm of suggesting I'm telling you fuckers what to do.

Like I've said a thousand times, you'll carry on doing whatever. And it'll carry on failing. And people will carry on being shot.

Good luck with it. Really.

*Oh, and maybe in the future complete your post before actually posting. How many edits are you going to make? I do it myself from time to time but this is getting stupid, every time I look back there's a new paragraph.

[Crossless2.0]

The problem is less legal than cultural. Guns are so ingrained in this society, with shooting and gun ownership a cherished part of so many family traditions stretching back for decades, that even the most modest and sensible of proposals to reform the situation are met with knee-jerk resistance in virtually every corner of the country -- and that even before the fucking NRA weighs in with their paid stooges in D.C.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Um no.  You said we couldn't amend to take away a right.  And we can in the manner you just suggested, we could pass an amendment repealing or drastically altering the 2nd Amendment.  If repealing isn't taking away, I don't what is.

----Practically it isn't going to happen because Congress isn't going to propose it and the states wouldn't ratify it if they did.

Even a repealed right remains.....waiting for the next amendment.  The things we put on the page never go away.  If you don't see the nuance there, then you don't see the manuovering room that our politicians have come to love and depend upon. Any hypothetical amendment cannot say "Amendment X to the constitution is that there is no amendment 2." It -can- place so many additional qualifiers upon amendment 2 that, in effect, no one qualifies. Again, your quote states, explicitly, that we are empowered to amend, not to remove...which is why we don't say remove, but repealed. I agree that it's duplicitous......but it is what it is, and I'm not who made it that way, lol.

[abaris]

So how did that work with the 18th amendment?

[The Grand Nudger]

It remains as all amendments remain.  Neutered by the 21st, of course (which may itself be neutered someday, bringing back the good ole 18th).

[abaris]

Yeah, but noone can enforce it, unless that complicated legal process is invoked again to repeal the 21st. Right now it's just letters and words.

[The Grand Nudger]

No objections from me on that count.  That's why we're picky about what we put in there in the first place, eh? It's hard to get stuff in, once it's in it's in for good, amending to effect repeal is even more difficult, and doing so does not remove whats in or gaurantee that it won't return by that very same process of amending the repealing amendment.

[abaris]

It's hard to get stuff in, once it's in it's in for good, amending to effect repeal is even more difficult, and doing so does not remove whats in or gaurantee that it won't return by that very same process of amending the repealing amendment.

Nothing is ever guaranteed. But following that line of thinking, there's no use in amending anything, since it could be repealed at some point in time.