New Constitutional Convention

[CEF1959]

Let's assume Congress voted to approve a new Constitutional Convention to address people's various concerns about the current one and (more importantly) how it's interpreted. Under Article V of our current constitution, any revision would require 3/4 of the states to approve. That's a whopper of a requirement.

Would the Second Amendment be amended to clarify gun rights? If so, in which direction?

What other amendments would you predict? [Note, not which would you like to see, but what do you think would happen?].

Read More

 

[Father of four]

Not which one I would like to see, but what ones I think I would see change?

Not sure. I don't think we really know what the county thinks about things as a whole.

Everything is very slanted. who can really tell what we all want unless we vote. And that itself seems to be fixed or slanted in one way or another.

Not sure what to say on this one except what I did.

 

[Trlsmn]

I would leave it just the way it is. You give congress critters a chance and they will destroy it.

 

[pchewn]

If such a thing happened, I predict:

2nd amendment would be watered down or removed.
Article 2 Section 1 would be changed to allow naturalized citizens to be president.
Article 2 section 2 would be watered down to provide for some sort of congressional control of the armed services.

 

[bugeye]

I would leave it just the way it is. You give congress critters a chance and they will destroy it.

+1

Considering our existing one is only 12 pages long it's pretty good. I would guess that any resulting document to replace it would end up being 50,000 pages long, at least. By the time the toilet seat lobby exerted it's influence on the document it would be manditory to wear one around your neck 24/7.

 

[Father of four]

+1

Considering our existing one is only 12 pages long it's pretty good. I would guess that any resulting document to replace it would end up being 50,000 pages long, at least.

Great point!

 

[Cougfan2]

I would leave it just the way it is. You give congress critters a chance and they will destroy it.

That's the same reason I oppose the Federal Govt getting involved in concealed carry reciprocity. Once they have control of it, they would eventually pass so many amendments to it that you would only be able to carry concealed in your own home with no ammo in the gun and a trigger lock on it.

 

[ZachS]

You'd have to triple the size of the federal court system to deal with all of the new conflicts, questions, and technicalities that would arise.


Anyway, it's a stupid idea to begin with. The Constitution's just fine.

 

[zeezee]

That's the same reason I oppose the Federal Govt getting involved in concealed carry reciprocity. Once they have control of it, they would eventually pass so many amendments to it that you would only be able to carry concealed in your own home with no ammo in the gun and a trigger lock on it.

It seems we don't even understand our own Constitution, because as the Bill of Rights points out these rights are given to us, not by man, but by God. God gave us the right to protect ourselves. Please try to remember that simple wee bit of information. The Constitution and enforced via the Amendments define our God given rights and not the rights of our elected officials. We have allowd, stupid us, to entrust these rights to our government, a big mistake, and if we do not get them back they will be lost forever. I pray the scotus read the 2nd the way our forfathers wrote it and not as bho and his ban of thugs want it read. A jurisdiction, be it city, county, state or federal does not have the right to regulate or confisicate the firearms of US citizens.

 

[Cougfan2]

It seems we don't even understand our own Constitution, because as the Bill of Rights points out these rights are given to us, not by man, but by God. God gave us the right to protect ourselves. Please try to remember that simple wee bit of information. The Constitution and enforced via the Amendments define our God given rights and not the rights of our elected officials. We have allowd, stupid us, to entrust these rights to our government, a big mistake, and if we do not get them back they will be lost forever. I pray the scotus read the 2nd the way our forfathers wrote it and not as bho and his ban of thugs want it read. A jurisdiction, be it city, county, state or federal does not have the right to regulate or confisicate the firearms of US citizens.

There's the way things should be and the way they are. I tend to try to change what is thru my vote and communication with my elected officials. That is the only way, like it or not, to effect meaningful change in this day and age. Ranting about they way things should be is OK I guess, but it doesn't accomplish much.

 

[zeezee]

There's the way things should be and the way they are. I tend to try to change what is thru my vote and communication with my elected officials. That is the only way, like it or not, to effect meaningful change in this day and age. Ranting about they way things should be is OK I guess, but it doesn't accomplish much.

Coug, no one is say not to do as you have been doing, via voting and communication with your elected officials but we must understand the intent, the true meaning of what was originally written and NOT in todays liberal reading of it, but what did the founding fathers really mean when they said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? They meant just that, these are my firearms and the collective government agencies cannot infringe upon my right to keep them. Did they say this was the states rights? NO! Did they say it was the feds right? NO! They said it is the PEOPLES RIGHT. Coug, if we give them the power to take these rights away than we are no longer citizens but slaves.

 

[Cougfan2]

Coug, no one is say not to do as you have been doing, via voting and communication with your elected officials but we must understand the intent, the true meaning of what was originally written and NOT in todays liberal reading of it, but what did the founding fathers really mean when they said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? They meant just that, these are my firearms and the collective government agencies cannot infringe upon my right to keep them. Did they say this was the states rights? NO! Did they say it was the feds right? NO! They said it is the PEOPLES RIGHT. Coug, if we give them the power to take these rights away than we are no longer citizens but slaves.

I don't disagree with you, but what is the choice outside of the current framework of laws unless we resort to armed resistance? I'm not saying that is not an option, but we are certainly far from that point yet. I believe I understand the intentions of the founders based on their writings, but we are where we are. At some point armed resistance may be appropriate, but we are a long, long way from that.

 

[8ball]

It seems we don't even understand our own Constitution, because as the Bill of Rights points out these rights are given to us, not by man, but by God. God gave us the right to protect ourselves. Please try to remember that simple wee bit of information.

Can you point out for me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says God gave us these rights?

 

[Gunner3456]

Can you point out for me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says God gave us these rights?

It's in the Declaration of Independence which a lot of men died for. We got our freedom from the King of England via the Revolutionary War. The Constitution was written during the War.

It's not "Constitution or Bill of Rights" because the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution.

 

[elsie]

It's in the Declaration of Independence which a lot of men died for. We got our freedom from the King of England via the Revolutionary War. The Constitution was written during the War.

It's not "Constitution or Bill of Rights" because the Bill of Rights is part of the constitution.

Actually, the Constitution of the US was written about 3 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation were written during the war (drafted 1777, ratified 1781).

I'm glad that it is difficult changing the US Constitution. It keeps the riff-raff amendments out, for the most part. Look at the mess that is going on with Oregon's Constitution with the amendment of the month.

elsie

 

[Cliph]

Zeezee has the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independece-"men are edowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Its interesting to note that those learned men chose not to use the term God or similar, but a more general term.

 

[Gunner3456]

Zeezee has the Constitution confused with the Declaration of Independece-"men are edowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Its interesting to note that those learned men chose not to use the term God or similar, but a more general term.

Ah, but they used both, and they capitalized both. I hold that you can have a god who is not a Creator, but not a Creator who is not God.

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them..."

I say this only to punctuate the clear fact that our founders believed that the rights they claimed for us were inalienable not only then, but now.

 

[THC101]

reasonable search and leisure and right to privacy would probably be meddled with among gun rights and allowing naturalized citizens to become pres

 

[pchewn]

reasonable search and leisure and right to privacy would probably be meddled with among gun rights and allowing naturalized citizens to become pres

Can't find the "right to privacy" in today's constitution, so are you suggesting that a new Constitutional Convention would add it? I couldn't seet that happening.

 

[zeezee]

Can you point out for me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says God gave us these rights?

Thank you gentlemen for correcting me, yes it is the Declaration of Independence that says in the second paragraph; "We hold these truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, . . .". Hmm, is that not referring to God? If not God than who? Also Webster describes unalienable as "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor : freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights." Our Rights are given to us by God, our Creator and NOT BY MAN!