Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 4024613" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>perhaps i do not follow your point entirely, but i'm sure there are those on both sides of the political spectrum that would like to see parts of the constitution changed (or perhaps simply 'interpreted') to allow for the things that they support to the detriment of another. </p><p></p><p>But the founders clearly understood that it might be necessary to make changes in some form or other. I'd suspect they were perfectly aware of the 'danger' that could arise from having a process for revision, yet they included it anyway. It's not an easy process by design. And it requires far more 'buy in' than almost anything else in our form of government.</p><p></p><p>The original question references using the 'proper' method for changing the constitution, rather than these 'gun control' laws that many here view as entirely unconstitutional. We might not like the outcome of changing the constitution, but it's happened before (for good and bad) and will likely happen again. I was just wondering about the 'what if' should a change be made with regards to guns. It's a though exercise, not an endorsement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 4024613, member: 277"] perhaps i do not follow your point entirely, but i'm sure there are those on both sides of the political spectrum that would like to see parts of the constitution changed (or perhaps simply 'interpreted') to allow for the things that they support to the detriment of another. But the founders clearly understood that it might be necessary to make changes in some form or other. I'd suspect they were perfectly aware of the 'danger' that could arise from having a process for revision, yet they included it anyway. It's not an easy process by design. And it requires far more 'buy in' than almost anything else in our form of government. The original question references using the 'proper' method for changing the constitution, rather than these 'gun control' laws that many here view as entirely unconstitutional. We might not like the outcome of changing the constitution, but it's happened before (for good and bad) and will likely happen again. I was just wondering about the 'what if' should a change be made with regards to guns. It's a though exercise, not an endorsement. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
If a (hypothetical) amendment were passed to ban guns
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom