Careful, once you advocate changing the Constitution to eliminate or narrow the Fourteenth Amendment, you concede the same move can be used against the Second.
Opponents will argue the Second was designed for a country without a permanent standing army and no longer serves its original function.
You can’t treat the Constitution as a monolith for the Second while calling for the eradication or overhaul of other amendments. One rule has to govern all of them. No double standards.
By that do you mean that liberals already call for the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated or severely changed? Yes, I'm aware of that.
But if the Supreme Court declares that the 14th Amendment can be changed or eradicated because it no longer applies to modern day society, then that sets a clear precedent for the Supreme Court to debate the 2nd Amendment as well.
The Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to make sweeping changes to the Amendments. But if they actually start debating changing or eliminating the 14th Amendment, then it opens the flood gate on others.
And it would be the exact same argument. That the conditions that lead our Fore fathers to create the Amendments are no longer applicable to modern day life, and are no longer relevant.
I find it weird that so many people don't understand this.
Do you really not see how you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Do you genuinely not understand that the Supreme Court doesn't get to just modify the Constitution, they are merely creating interpretations and applying said interpretations to the lower "categories" of law made by the Federal and State govts?
Precedent has always been a fickle beast, because these interpretations have never been permanent binding agreements for all future SCs to follow. To argue against turning precedent ever because it might be weaponized against us is fucking ludicrous to the highest order.
To argue otherwise is to say Blacks are subhuman non-citizens (Scott V Sandford) that we are at permanent liberty to round up forever (Korematsu V US) whilest the government can demand you buy slave grown cotton or be ruined by fines for "affecting interstate commerce" (Wickard V Filburn).
Because remember, by your own logic of "never change precedent or you might get gun grabbed in the future", if you don't agree with all that, "shall not be infringed" becomes "unless you are a domestic abuser" (Rahimi V US) or if "it's not used by the military" (US V Miller), or "it's not a common use item" (Columbia V Heller). Oh wait, IT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENS
"Shall not be infringed" isn't some magic phrase that can prevent the Amendment from being changed, using the same argument being presented here that the original conditions no longer apply.
You just acknowledged that "shall not be infringed" is already being violated, so obviously that phrase alone isn't enough to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Crime-wise America was a lot safer when everyone carried on their hip or across their back. But then again a bunch of younger adults were shot for just being smartasses instead of actually “harming” anyone because some short-fuse asshole got his feeewings hurt (not including the crimes of the “Wild West”). So in came all the “control” laws by States.
Yeah, and we're no longer at war with the British, so that no longer is a factor in why we need to keep our guns.
I'm not advocating for removing the 2nd Amendment. I'm fully in favor of it.
I'm pointing out that people advocating for changing the US Constitution is putting the 2nd Amendment at risk.
Do people really not understand this?
You can't claim that the US Constitution is a monolith and sacred and unable to be changed when it suits you (2nd Amendment) and then turn around and demand the US Constitution be changed to eliminate Amendments you claim are no longer applicable to our modern society (14th Amendment).
And there are plenty of judiciary decisions on the 14th Amendment before the modern conservative take on it. So I'm not sure why you think that somehow invalidates what I'm saying...
Careful, once you advocate changing the Constitution to eliminate or narrow the Fourteenth Amendment, you concede the same move can be used against the Second.
Opponents will argue the Second was designed for a country without a permanent standing army and no longer serves its original function.
You can’t treat the Constitution as a monolith for the Second while calling for the eradication or overhaul of other amendments. One rule has to govern all of them. No double standards.
Your point is moot because they already do that.
Do you not remember the harping on about "well regulated militia"?
By that do you mean that liberals already call for the 2nd Amendment to be eliminated or severely changed? Yes, I'm aware of that.
But if the Supreme Court declares that the 14th Amendment can be changed or eradicated because it no longer applies to modern day society, then that sets a clear precedent for the Supreme Court to debate the 2nd Amendment as well.
The Supreme Court has historically been hesitant to make sweeping changes to the Amendments. But if they actually start debating changing or eliminating the 14th Amendment, then it opens the flood gate on others.
And it would be the exact same argument. That the conditions that lead our Fore fathers to create the Amendments are no longer applicable to modern day life, and are no longer relevant.
I find it weird that so many people don't understand this.
Do you really not see how you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth?
Do you genuinely not understand that the Supreme Court doesn't get to just modify the Constitution, they are merely creating interpretations and applying said interpretations to the lower "categories" of law made by the Federal and State govts?
Precedent has always been a fickle beast, because these interpretations have never been permanent binding agreements for all future SCs to follow. To argue against turning precedent ever because it might be weaponized against us is fucking ludicrous to the highest order.
To argue otherwise is to say Blacks are subhuman non-citizens (Scott V Sandford) that we are at permanent liberty to round up forever (Korematsu V US) whilest the government can demand you buy slave grown cotton or be ruined by fines for "affecting interstate commerce" (Wickard V Filburn).
Because remember, by your own logic of "never change precedent or you might get gun grabbed in the future", if you don't agree with all that, "shall not be infringed" becomes "unless you are a domestic abuser" (Rahimi V US) or if "it's not used by the military" (US V Miller), or "it's not a common use item" (Columbia V Heller). Oh wait, IT ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENS
"Shall not be infringed"
Seems pretty clear to me.
Also where have you been living if you don't think they've infringed and narrowed the fuck out of the 2nd amendment already lol
"Shall not be infringed" isn't some magic phrase that can prevent the Amendment from being changed, using the same argument being presented here that the original conditions no longer apply.
You just acknowledged that "shall not be infringed" is already being violated, so obviously that phrase alone isn't enough to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Except it was supposed to be. It was the only amendment that explicitly said don't fucking change a fucking thing. Don't fucking infringe a thing.
Then skip forward awhile and you have democrats who can't read but also hate America.
Crime-wise America was a lot safer when everyone carried on their hip or across their back. But then again a bunch of younger adults were shot for just being smartasses instead of actually “harming” anyone because some short-fuse asshole got his feeewings hurt (not including the crimes of the “Wild West”). So in came all the “control” laws by States.
An armed society, is a polite society.
Nope. Britain wanted the colonists' guns. See
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/08/12/how-the-british-gun-control-program-precipitated-the-american-revolution/
Yeah, and we're no longer at war with the British, so that no longer is a factor in why we need to keep our guns.
I'm not advocating for removing the 2nd Amendment. I'm fully in favor of it.
I'm pointing out that people advocating for changing the US Constitution is putting the 2nd Amendment at risk.
Do people really not understand this?
You can't claim that the US Constitution is a monolith and sacred and unable to be changed when it suits you (2nd Amendment) and then turn around and demand the US Constitution be changed to eliminate Amendments you claim are no longer applicable to our modern society (14th Amendment).
You can't have it both ways.
Read Dredd. It is clear what the judiciary thought of the 2nd before the modern liberal.
And there are plenty of judiciary decisions on the 14th Amendment before the modern conservative take on it. So I'm not sure why you think that somehow invalidates what I'm saying...
You are making assumptions I did not imply.
Did you read Dred before you replied? I would guess not.