2nd Amendment thread

[sdkid]

I prefer our system where laws are decided by a representative Parliament that we voted for, and who we can vote out. I know you believe you are born with rights, but I agree with many legal scholars who point out that your "rights" are dependent on a total of nine people, and often only five of them, who you didn't vote for, and can't vote out, in the form of the United States Supreme Court. It always pays to remember that the possession of firearms for purposes not related to a Militia was not a constitutional "right" in the US until DC vs Heller in 2008, and that decision was by a bare majority only, whereas Abortion was a "right" from 1973 until 2002 when the Supreme Court took that "right" away. I don't want to get into the merits of either decision, they are just a couple of well know ones to illustrate a point.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is really crystal clear, and established the RECOGNIZED right when the bill of rights was added to the constitution. 2A does not restrict people-- it restricts GOVERNMENT, and for damn good reason.

You frame it as subservience but here in Australia we the voter grant power to the legislature to act on our behalf, and we the voter hold the power to elect a different government who will legislate differently if we don't like it. What option do you have if the US SC gets stacked with justices who lean left, and all of a sudden those "rights" you believe you are born with are not so guaranteed anymore?

As a republic, we elect a representative government here as well. What they can't do is simply "legislate differently" because one group or another doesn't "like" something. Laws must follow the constitution-- and liberals too-often do not understand that.

Liberal politicians push for liberal justices who "bend" the constitution to what they want, rather than APPLY the constitution. We already dealt with that for 50 years with the abortion issue. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that Roe-v-Wade was a deeply flawed decision and would not hold up-- not in terms of "rights", but in terms of the powers granted (and NOT granted) to federal government.

As for 2A-- the abolishment of 2A through some unconstitutional means would very likely mean war. The existence of 2A is literally what keeps the peace. Totalitarianism can only exist where a population has no means of defense. Tell me, what defense does the population of Australia have from its own government?

 

[SyconsciousAu]

You have no judicial court system that determines if something is lawful or not?

We have the High Court of Australia, but out constitution contains no specific rights, and the HCA has only ever stated that it contains a single implied right, and that is freedom of political communication. Because of that there is no provision for the HCA to make a ruling that a particular law is "unconstitutional" unless of course that law attempts to legislate an area for which the entity was not granted power in the constitution to legislate. For example a State couldn't start making laws relating to telecommunications, and the Federal Government couldn't start making laws in relation to firearms licensing. As long as the legislative body stays within its lane when making laws, the HCA will apply those laws., however, that's not to say we don't have rights, but those rights exist in common law, not in the constitution. The legislature is permitted to pass laws which infringe on those common law rights and freedoms but the infringement must be reasonable. In a recent case brought by Clive Palmer challenging state border closures during COVID on constitutional grounds, the HCA ruled that even constitutional protections can be infringed upon if the infringement is reasonable.

In relation to our firearms laws, someone has already had a crack at getting the HCA to declare them invalid, and they were refused leave to appeal.

McHUGH J:

Well, we are ruled by law and law is the law of Parliament; it is called legal positivism. It is the law laid down. This Court makes decisions and, unless they are constitutional decisions, the Parliament can overrule them and often does. We lay down a law, Parliament can change it. It is the democratic right of the people to do it through their parliamentary representatives. So, what you are faced with is the Queensland Parliament enacting this legislation, which you obviously think is a bad piece of legislation and infringement with your rights and which other members of the community think is a good thing, that is something to be debated at the ballot box, but it is not a constitutional matter, as it is in the United States, of course, where their written Constitution gives the right to bear arms and what that means is ‑ ‑ ‑

Now if we, as a society, decided that everyone could have a firearm in the home for self defence, we could make that happen through legislation to give effect to the wishes of the electorate, and there is absolutely nothing the HCA can do about it. Same same abortion, if the majority want it gone, it goes, and there is nothing the HCA can do about it. But in the case of Texas the majority clearly wanted limitations on the ability to have an abortion in that state. Millions of people, yet just seven people were able to overrule the majority in roe vs wade, and for nearly 40 years Texans had no recourse. They could vote in any government they wanted but they still couldn't pass law they wanted, because seven people disagreed with their wishes.

 

[sdkid]

I will add an example. If the US had someone like that bastard Trudeau in Canada who has acted like a little dictator-- that literally could spark a civil war in the US. Why? Because there are people who believe in the principles of government within our established constitution, and the protection of individual rights that are contained in that same constitution. HALF of this country wants to DEFEND the rights for ALL of this country. the other half is willing to use government to IMPOSE a belief system, regulations, lifestyle, and restrict rights (like 2A). They are free to move to Canada, or Australia for that matter.

Nearly one in three Americans say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government

A majority of Americans say the U.S. government is corrupt and almost a third say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against it, according to a new poll from the University of Chicago’s…

thehill.com

 

[sdkid]

...The legislature is permitted to pass laws which infringe on those common law rights and freedoms but the infringement must be reasonable. In a recent case brought by Clive Palmer challenging state border closures during COVID on constitutional grounds, the HCA ruled that even constitutional protections can be infringed upon if the infringement is reasonable...

Enjoy Australia mate. I will stay here and support politicians who live up to their pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, and the principles of individual freedoms embedded within our constitution.

 

[sdkid]

 

[SyconsciousAu]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is really crystal clear

Why do people feel the need to truncate off the first part of that statement?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And it's far from crystal clear. If it was your justices would consistently be ruling along similar lines. What it means has been debated for years by all of your Courts, and that continues today.

What they can't do is simply "legislate differently" because one group or another doesn't "like" something. Laws must follow the constitution-- and liberals too-often do not understand that.

I don't always get my wish at the ballot box but I'm committed to the democratic concept of majority rule. Legislatures should be free to pass laws consistent with the wishes of the people who elected them. The people of Texas should be free to pass laws banning abortion. The people of DC should be able to pass laws regarding the safe storage of firearms. If you allow the opinion of five partisan appointed people to overrule the opinions of the majority, are you truly a democratic society?

Liberal politicians push for liberal justices who "bend" the constitution to what they want, rather than APPLY the constitution

And conservative politicians don't push for conservative justices who they believe will make decisions in their interests? Politicians act in their own interests, news at 11.

We already dealt with that for 50 years with the abortion issue.

And, despite the wishes of the majority in Texas, they were not permitted to pass laws they wanted, and they had no recourse. You don't consider that to be a drawback?

They are free to move to Canada, or Australia for that matter.

And the people who wanted free access to abortions were free to move to California. If you are going to have a democracy, a true democracy, the wishes of the minority need to lose out to the wishes of the majority, and when you are in that minority, as I am at present, you need to accept that. Allowing five unelected individuals to trump the will of the people is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

Tell me, what defense does the population of Australia have from its own government?

That would be the rule of law, and the fact that we can sack them every four years if we want.

 

[TonyR]

View attachment 134744

Nearly one in three Americans say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government

A majority of Americans say the U.S. government is corrupt and almost a third say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against it, according to a new poll from the University of Chicago’s…

thehill.com

And this is EXACTLY why the Dems are working so VERY hard to get rid of 2A and to pass extreme gun control measures and Red Flag laws.

 

[SyconsciousAu]

And this is EXACTLY why the Dems are working so VERY hard to get rid of 2A

Don't the states need to vote 2/3 in favour to amend it?

 

[TonyR]

Don't the states need to vote 2/3 in favour to amend it?

Regarding Federal legislation, if the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill.

State-level legislation very similar,

Bottom line: We will see how many county sheriffs in the 50 states will enforce any Federal gun legislation...likely VERY few.

 

[SyconsciousAu]

Regarding Federal legislation, if the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill.

State-level legislation very similar,

Bottom line: We will see how many county sheriffs in the 50 states will enforce any Federal gun legislation...likely VERY few.

I was talking about amending the constitution, something that would need to occur for them to "get rid of 2A"

 

[sdkid]

Why do people feel the need to truncate off the first part of that statement?



And it's far from crystal clear. If it was your justices would consistently be ruling along similar lines. What it means has been debated for years by all of your Courts, and that continues today.



I don't always get my wish at the ballot box but I'm committed to the democratic concept of majority rule. Legislatures should be free to pass laws consistent with the wishes of the people who elected them. The people of Texas should be free to pass laws banning abortion. The people of DC should be able to pass laws regarding the safe storage of firearms. If you allow the opinion of five partisan appointed people to overrule the opinions of the majority, are you truly a democratic society?



And conservative politicians don't push for conservative justices who they believe will make decisions in their interests? Politicians act in their own interests, news at 11.



And, despite the wishes of the majority in Texas, they were not permitted to pass laws they wanted, and they had no recourse. You don't consider that to be a drawback?




And the people who wanted free access to abortions were free to move to California. If you are going to have a democracy, a true democracy, the wishes of the minority need to lose out to the wishes of the majority, and when you are in that minority, as I am at present, you need to accept that. Allowing five unelected individuals to trump the will of the people is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.




That would be the rule of law, and the fact that we can sack them every four years if we want.

Again with 2A, the militia is ALL ADULT PEOPLE. You see the m word, and you think of a state-sponsored army. That is NOT what 2A refers to, and in fact, 2A is an insurance policy AGAINST a standing army occupying every city and town. We Will Not Have It, and WE--- the PEOPLE, are intended to be ARMED to prevent such a thing. So, the prefatory clause establishes the PEOPLE'S right to protect their interests and rights by force if necessary from a tyrannical government.

You also are really stuck on the abortion issue. First, there is nothing in the constitution that says the Federal Government can regulate abortions-- 10th amendment states powers not specified for the federal government belong to the states. That's it. Roe-V-Wade violated that, so SCOTUS delivered a ruling that CORRECTED the improper and illegal RVW ruling from 50 years earlier. Second. You continue to interpret this as a "violation" of women's rights. Being ripped apart limb from limb with "medical" instruments is a helluva violation of rights too. Feel free to google images as needed, though you may need to use an alternative search engine as Google has removed thousands of images that result from that kind of search. But I digress...

We are not a "Democratic" society. We are a Republic. Look up "Tyranny of the Majority" as discussed by the founders. You would have the minority trampled at the will of the majority-- purely because they "democratically" said so. We believe in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which NO GROUP CAN VIOLATE and which are delineated within the constitution. As for Texas passing laws-- they can pass all the laws they want---- AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[sdkid]

I was talking about amending the constitution, something that would need to occur for them to "get rid of 2A"

To ammend-- you need 2/3 of congress (both houses) to pass, then you need 3/4 of states to RATIFY an amendment. It will never happen-- but the liberals will do all they can to infringe because they are ignorant and fearful.

 

[SyconsciousAu]

You also are really stuck on the abortion issue.

I am?

I don't want to get into the merits of either decision, they are just a couple of well know ones to illustrate a point.

If you really want I could start citing other far more obscure cases where the SCOTUS reversed it's previous decision. There's more than a few.

Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

A table of Supreme Court decisions in which the Court overturned a prior ruling. The table contains only cases where the Court explicitly stated that it is overruling a prior decision or issued a decision that is the functional equivalent of an express overruling.

constitution.congress.gov

Roe-V-Wade violated that, so SCOTUS delivered a ruling that CORRECTED the improper and illegal RVW ruling from 50 years earlier

Sell that to me. The highest court in the land, from which there is no appeal, made an illegal ruling did it? Which court heard that appeal.

Second. You continue to interpret this as a "violation" of women's rights.

I do? Where did I say that?

We believe in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which NO GROUP CAN VIOLATE and which are delineated within the constitution. As for Texas passing laws-- they can pass all the laws they want---- AS LONG AS THEY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

Let me correct that for you, as long as the Supreme Court of the day says they follow the constitution. I see you are clearly fanatical about your bill of rights but from this side of the Pacific your rights only look as assured as the SCOTUS says they are.

 

[David L]

But in the case of Texas the majority clearly wanted limitations on the ability to have an abortion in that state. Millions of people, yet just seven people were able to overrule the majority in roe vs wade, and for nearly 40 years Texans had no recourse. They could vote in any government they wanted but they still couldn't pass law they wanted, because seven people disagreed with their wishes.

You are partially right, many laws were passed in Texas making abortions safer. Texas could not stop abortions but made provisions in Texas Law.

Abortion in Texas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Many people do not understand that the overturning of Roe v Wade does not stop abortions nor does it make them Illegal, it only throws the Case back to the states to decide.

IMO, our SCOTUS is not suppose to make new Laws, they are only suppose to rule on Cases brought before them from the states appealing to them. Making Abortions Legal across all 50 states was Illegal, IMO, same with their Same-Sex Marriage ruling (Law).

 

[TonyR]

I was talking about amending the constitution, something that would need to occur for them to "get rid of 2A"

Yes, you certainly did say "amend"....I should know better than to post so late after a long day and a doctor's appointment.

According to The Constitution Center:

"An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification."​

​

What does it take to change a constitutional amendment? ==>> This.

"Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states). Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states)."​

​

EDIT: Added info re: changing an existing amendment,7/28/22 @ 0643 CT.

 

[David L]

Yes, you certainly did say "amend"....I should know better than to post so late after a long day and a doctor's appointment.

According to The Constitution Center:

"An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification."​

​

What does it take to change a constitutional amendment? ==>> This.

"Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states). Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states)."​

​

EDIT: Added info re: changing an existing amendment,7/28/22 @ 0643 CT.

EDIT: Added info re: changing an existing amendment,7/28/22 @ 0643 CT.

AMENDMENT: Added info re: changing an existing amendment,7/28/22 @ 0643 CT.

I corrected it for you

 

[sdkid]

If you really want I could start citing other far more obscure cases where the SCOTUS reversed it's previous decision. There's more than a few.

Did you think they were infallible? Do you NEVER make an incorrect decision?

Sell that to me. The highest court in the land, from which there is no appeal, made an illegal ruling did it? Which court heard that appeal.

Not "illegal"-- legally incorrect. RBG agreed they screwed up... though she still had the goal of allowing women to randomly kill babies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/

I do? Where did I say that?

You keep talking here and there about a women's right to abortion and act as though they have been violated by the recent SCOTUS decision. They haven't. There is no right to kill your baby.

Let me correct that for you, as long as the Supreme Court of the day says they follow the constitution. I see you are clearly fanatical about your bill of rights but from this side of the Pacific your rights only look as assured as the SCOTUS says they are.

And we have those rights detailed in our constitution-- a document that is purposely difficult to alter. Of course there is an ebb and flow to the legal thinking of any given generation. In 1944 SCOTUS ruled that Roosevelt's Japanese Internment Camps in the US were "legal" -- obviously a WRONG decision. So should those mistakes NOT be corrected?

Let's bring this right back around full circle shall we? 2A is far more clear than you make it out to be, and it is not going anywhere. SCOTUS recently protected the rights of gun owners and their right to self defense. States run by crazy liberals will certainly pass restrictive laws that hurt legal gun owners and their rights to self-defense and ownership as they follow their philosophy of "The STATE can provide all the security you need!" bullshit. Those states will ultimately have their over-reaching laws slapped back in their faces by SCOTUS, just as we saw in New York, and people living there will see relief. That is how our system works.

It's sad that your high court can't seemingly do anything to PROTECT the rights of people in Australia, where it seems that as long as a law was passed by a (possibly tyrannical) majority, then that is the law. It's backwards to me, as I believe the Ultimate law is not what a given majority wants-- but by the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, guaranteed to them via their own existence.

The deepest struggles we have ever had were when that individual-rights viewpoint was stretched to breaking (slavery, "legal" discrimination via segregation, voting rights) by those who believed they could restrict others. We face the same kinds of things today, as Liberals are hell-bent on restricting others in life-altering ways, with

• attacks on self-defense & 2A rights,
• SPEECH/Censorship on Social Media,
• Using schools to indoctrinate liberal ideology rather than Educate (and stifling criticism of Ed policy),
• redefining "hate speech" to criminally charge those who disagree,
• using taxes and fees to attack people who want to live in ways that liberals don't like (like forcing everyone to pay for Green New Deal bullshit)

Conservatives are more about "You do You--- I'll do Me-- but leave me the hell alone." We don't give a shit how liberals live-- but don't try to MAKE US live the way YOU want. Don't attempt to pass laws (tyrannical majority) under faux "Democracy" to use the force of government to coerce compliance to liberal ideologies. That's what this is all about-- FREEDOM. Conservatives want liberals to be free to live as they like. The reverse is not always true at all, and in many instances liberals are the majority, and they are truly intolerant. Our constitution helps reduce their insidious impact, but it is an ongoing legal, philosophical, and educational battle.

Lastly--- Thank you for a thoughtful and respectful discussion.

 

[garycrist]

As the monsters in Washington D.C. know they will not be able get rid of our firearms, they are trying
to do it via a backdoor. Most notably the UN.




As far as "a well regulated militia", we are allowed to have our radio transmitters aka. Amateur Radio.

The purpose of amateur radio, if you ask the FCC, is clear - to improve communication skills, to promote the interest and associated technology of radio, and to provide a means of emergency communications. But hey, don't take that too seriously - ham radio can be practiced just for the fun of it. But then again, who knows - you may help save somebody's life one day, because of you amateur radio knowledge and skills

 

[sdkid]

In other news.... LOL

I bought a Glock G20 10mm recently, and finally did some shooting with it. Very nice! I wish I could afford a LOT of ammo to shoot it more. The design of that handgun provides for smooth firing of a powerful round. I bought it because I wanted something for a hike in Grizzly country in Wyoming. I hiked at Kirwin Wyoming, a "ghost" town abandoned by miners after a deadly avalance in 1907. The hike I did took me to the top of Bald Mountain in the pic below-- about 1,300 feet higher than the 9,200 ft elevation of that building you see. That elevation kicked my old ass on that 3.5 mile hike.



The top was amazing, along with the cabin remains and mining equipment abandoned there... It was a good hike with my brother-in-law.



There was Elk poop everywhere-- lots of it very fresh (we likely pushed them to the trees lower in the valley). Is this Elk or Moose?




On the way back, working through the old switchback mining roads-- it felt Very eery-- exceptionally quiet-- spidey-senses tingling Then we found this:



Was glad to have a canister of bear spray and my Glock on my hip.

 

[looney2ns]

Back to regularly scheduled programing......