# New attack on the second amendment



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

One of my older friends with a memory comparable to mine says he recently got a phone call from some senator group. The part he can't remember is what group that was. However, the spokesman said Obama and Hillary are working hard to sign us onto a United Nations treaty that has a ban on personal weapons throughout the world. Since no liberal in Washington has read the constitution in 50 years we could see this happen and everyone just sitting back and taking it. The only hope is that November 2010 gets here fast. The scary part is the damage he has been able to do in less than a year. He could really hurt us before we can stop him.

Many liberals say our constitution is a living document. If that is true the bill of rights means very little, since any nut job who takes office and has the support of congress could realistically change our bill of rights and any other part of the constitution on a whim. The activist judges on the supreme court are not the solution either, they are part of the problem.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

The obamanation can sign all the treaties he wants.....

In the end, don't they actually have to be ratified by Congress?


----------



## duckmander (Aug 25, 2008)

I have said for years we need to fire every one of them and put in all new ones.

They dont work for us anymore they work for themselves.
they dont go by the same guidlines we have to. they make a whole new set,
strickly for them. 
They dont try to make things better for america.

They only want it better for themselves.

More money
Better ritirement
all benefits paid my you and me.
then they want to take away eveything we love and charrish. 
God, money, medical,hunting etc.

They all have this save the world way of thinking. 
I am of the thinking of lets save america. And the rest is on their own.
We will help if possible. but are not going to undo us to fix them.

And every election year the choices get slimmer and slimmer.

For the last no telling how many years I never vote for the one I want to be in office.
Instead I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils.
As in which one will be the safest crash test dummy.

I have never liked republicans because they are only for the big man. atleast the democrats dont mind the little man making a living.

But this bunch we have now is so far out in left field It's not even funny.

they can only dammage no help in site.

I'm not saying they dont know what their doing because they know all too well what they are doing. 
And it is all for them. not for you and me.
The musliems said if they cant take us out from outside. then they will take us out from within.
AND WHALLAH WE HAVE A MUSLIEM PRESIDENT.
I have said all along he works for them and will hand us over to them just as soon as he gets us like they want us. 
where we have no choice of retallyation. either follow orders of be beheaded.

I dont mean to sound rude crude or cruel. this is just my personal opinion.
any president that ignores the flag, anthem, and bows down for the leader of another country. 
Does not have a pair. and should not be in the position he holds.
And should be removed promptly. for said actions.

I know what your thinking and color has nothing to do with it. Actions are the only reason I feel the way I do.


----------



## Sawyerbob (Apr 24, 2004)

farmerj said:


> The obamanation can sign all the treaties he wants.....
> 
> In the end, don't they actually have to be ratified by Congress?


It only has to be ratified by the Senate.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Yop....Granted this information talks about the Geneva Act, It gives a pretty good break down of the process.

http://www.fryer.com/WGAERPA.htm



> In the United States a treaty must be consented to by the Senate. The first step in that process, usually, is review of the treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies and law. The Geneva Act was reviewed initially by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This Office was actively involved in the development of the Geneva Act, including attending all the meeting of experts and the diplomatic conference in 1999. The United States signed the treaty document, indicating a commitment to presented it to Congress for approval.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> Many liberals say our constitution is a living document. If that is true the bill of rights means very little, since any nut job who takes office and has the support of congress could realistically change our bill of rights and any other part of the constitution on a whim. The activist judges on the supreme court are not the solution either, they are part of the problem.


The US Constitution is a living document that allows for changes over time. If I recall correctly, it has been amended 27 times since it was originally drafted. In fact, that second amendment that folks keep talking about was an amendment to the Constitution. This means that it was not in the original text.

If you really want us to chisel the original Constituion into granite and not allow it to be amended, then are you also OK with striking all 27 amendments that have been adopted to date? Be careful, the Bill or Rights includes a fair share of those amendments.

Last, the Constitution can't be changed "on a whim". If I recall, an amendment requires a 2/3 majority of Congress and 75 percent vote from states. That's not easy. However, we do live in a republic with a representative government. If it is the will of the people to amend the Constitution, then who are we to disagree? People forget that we are the government. That's the whole point.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Big Daddy is correct.

The constitution is a living doc. It can be changed. Look at amendment 18....abolish liquor. Then amendment 21 repealed amendment 18.

The constitution set up 7 Articles... 
1.Legislative Branch (and guidelines)
2. Exectuive Branch (and guidelines.) 
3. Judicial Branch (guidlines) 
4. States and their rights. 
5. *AMENDMENTS* (allows for the document to be living) 
6. Debts, Supremacy and Oaths 
7. Ratification.

One thing they are over looking with Health Care is the amendments.....# 10... Powers of the States and the People. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" So forcing someone to have health care could be infringing on this. This could gain momentum. Like I stated in another post.....MN is looking into it, Nevada is looking into. I am sure more will also.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> One of my older friends with a memory comparable to mine says he recently got a phone call from some senator group. The part he can't remember is what group that was. However, the spokesman said Obama and Hillary are working hard to sign us onto a United Nations treaty that has a ban on personal weapons throughout the world. Since no liberal in Washington has read the constitution in 50 years we could see this happen and everyone just sitting back and taking it. The only hope is that November 2010 gets here fast. The scary part is the damage he has been able to do in less than a year. He could really hurt us before we can stop him.
> 
> Many liberals say our constitution is a living document. If that is true the bill of rights means very little, since any nut job who takes office and has the support of congress could realistically change our bill of rights and any other part of the constitution on a whim. The activist judges on the supreme court are not the solution either, they are part of the problem.


I understand your passion for protecting the 2nd amendment but come on here. Your post equates to "you heard from a guy, who heard from an unnamed group, that our government is working on banning all personal weapons." That sounds pretty credible to me?

In regards to our constitution being a living document. If it weren't the document would have been outdated by 1815.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> In regards to our constitution being a living document. If it weren't the document would have been outdated by 1815.


They started making amendments in 1791 :wink:

Sorry I am a history geek. :beer:


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)




----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The Constitution is not a living document!!!! Liberals want people to believe that to apply their way of thinking today vs the intent and thinking of the founding fathers. The fact that the Constitution can be amended does not make it a living document. For a prime example of this one only needs to look at the ruling of Heller vs DC. In it the majority of the SC, recognized that militia where and are the people of this nation.

If it was a living document as Big Daddy claims then they would have ruled that only the military are guaranteed the right to bear arms.!!!!!

It amazes me that something as simple to understand gets mixed up by some people. The founders of this nation recognized that change was going to take place. What they did was provide a mechanism for people to adapt the Constitution to change via the amendment process. Womens right to vote is one example, but you get the drift. If the document was living the courts simply could have ruled that women had the right to vote!!!!!!


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Change it dont change it just keep these crazy liberals away from it. Its not the changes its who changes it and to what. So if you have these crazys looking at it maybe best to just seal it and allow no changes in the future. We just have too many crazies around today. They were not around 50 years ago.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron is correct. There are ways to change it to give us more rights, or to adapt to new situations like cloning which was not even imagined when the constitution was drafted. However, it's a little scary that they can take away rights like personal weapons, freedom of speech, the right to trial etc. 
Now I know some liberal is going to say they would never touch freedom of speech, but they are working on that too. Work for the feds once and find out how many speech police you work with. Political correctness rules the day in many places. Mostly government offices, state and federal, but it's spreading like cancer. Much like tolerance which isn't a virtue, but rather a lack of principles.
As far as credability I have been getting alerts from Gun Owners of America much the same. Remember when they wanted to sign the treaty with Mexico and claimed 90% of the firearms used in violence in Mexico came from the United States. Well the truth is less than 10% of the firearms in Mexico have a serial number. The ones that do are sent to the United States for identification and some of those did originate here, and some of those were not legally purchased but stolen in the United States. The liberals blamed gun shows.
Bigdaddy the party you like has time and again shown it's dislike of the constitution and in particular the second amendment. All you need to do is look at the voting record. Which party is always pushing for gun control and slack in enforcing the laws on the books. Look at this form and ask who respects law enforcement. Which party did the guy follow that said he didn't give a darn how many of our soldiers were shot? That was on this form two or three years ago. The democrat party is getting very radical left. Today I think most are Marxist. If they could get away with it they would vote for Obama as king. How about you?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Sorry Plainsman, but that dog won't hunt.

We have three branches of government in this country: the legislative branch which creates laws, the executive branch which enforces and implements laws, and the judicial branch which interprets laws. I think that much of your concern relates to changes to how laws and the Constitution is being interpreted. That's what the judicial branch is supposed to do! As society changes and new cases are brought forward, it is inevitable that a vaguely worded law is going to be reinterpreted. Want to stop it? Have the legislative branch re-word the language in question into lock-tight language that is no longer open to differing interpretations. The second amendment is worded poorly, hence repeated differences in how it should be interpreted.

Frankly, I think that you understand that the Constitution is open to differing interpretations. You simply don't like the fact that persons interpret it any differently than you do. Sorry, until we live in Plainsmanistan, I think that we are stuck with a three-branch government, and frankly, it has worked quite well for over 200 years.

You point to the fact that the democrat platform provides a threat to your rights under the second amendment. I don't disagree with you. However, I guess I missed your posts a few years ago when you raised similar concerns with threats to your first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights under the previous administration. The current administration and current Congress did not invent threats to our personal liberties, and I will stand with you to defend our rights under the second amendment. However, I would respect your position more if you would simply acknowledge the fact that the conservatives made purposeful attacks on our personal liberties during the past administration in the name of fear and national security.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> The Constitution is not a living document!!!!


I don't trust any of these crooks touching the constitution. Way too many brilliant people wrote this and these idiots could only cause harm, on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Sorry Plainsman, but that dog won't hunt.


Which dog would that be? This one:


> There are ways to change it to give us more rights, or to adapt to new situations like cloning which was not even imagined when the constitution was drafted.


It can't be this one:


> However, it's a little scary that they can take away rights like personal weapons, freedom of speech, the right to trial etc.


Because on the very last post you said:


> However, I guess I missed your posts a few years ago when you raised similar concerns with threats to your first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights under the previous administration.


You couldn't have been referring to that because I have posted my concern for all of these posts many times. I don't want either side attacking those rights.
Of course we all know your referring to the Patriot Act, which Obama had renewed) that can phone tap known terrorist, or terrorist sympathisers.



> However, I would respect your position more if you would simply acknowledge the fact that the conservatives made purposeful attacks on our personal liberties during the past administration in the name of fear and national security.


Bush, Bush, Bush, get over it. He tore your boys up in Florida. Get over it.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Seems like the only excuse the libs have for being stupit is that Bush was also stupit. Get over it he is gone. You Libs have to stand on your own stupitity.You can't accuse me of being politicly correct. Watch this ( Pi$$ on the liberals). I'M afraid Obama and his thugs have driven me nuts. uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Liberals just can't admit reality publicly.
If you hear someone call a policeman a pig -- liberal
If you hear someone bad mouth the military -- liberal
If you hear someone wanting to legalize prostitution -- ACORN liberal
If you hear someone wanting gun control -- liberal
If you hear someone use the term living document when talking about the constitution -- liberal
If you hear them brag about tolerance --- liberal
If they tell you that your not politically correct --- liberal
If they feel sorry for criminals -- liberal
If they feel sorry for terrorists --- liberal
If they think Islam is a peaceful religion -- liberal
If they like to refer to their European friends --- liberal
If they like to tell you they are intellectual --- liberal
If they think taxes are good --- liberal
If they think you don't like Obama because he is black --- liberal
etc, etc, etc, including Bushafobia. 
Last, if they concentrate on spelling and punctuation more than content --- liberal 
See profiling works.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> If they like to refer to their European friends --- liberal


wait a minute, I have referred to people I know from Europe and Austrailia. I even have relatives in Europe that we are still in some touch with.

Does that make me a liberal? I am pretty sure sure that some of my values are as or more conservative than the staunchest of repub.



> Of course we all know your referring to the Patriot Act, which Obama had renewed) that can phone tap known terrorist, or terrorist sympathisers.


There are some parts of the patriot act that I don't like. Anyone who has ever rubbed elbows with law enforcement wouldn't like some of them, but Obama renewing it without tweaking it somewhat was a mistake and showed his hypocrisy.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> If you hear someone wanting gun control -- liberal


Ok Plainsman, I take offense to these. Im in favor of gun control, I really really like hitting my target.



> If they feel sorry for terrorists --- liberal


This one too. Im sorry that we cant arrange meetings with their virgins immediately, some will just have to wait their turn.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Ron Gilmore said:


> The Constitution is not a living document!!!! Liberals want people to believe that to apply their way of thinking today vs the intent and thinking of the founding fathers. The fact that the Constitution can be amended does not make it a living document. For a prime example of this one only needs to look at the ruling of Heller vs DC. In it the majority of the SC, recognized that militia where and are the people of this nation.
> 
> If it was a living document as Big Daddy claims then they would have ruled that only the military are guaranteed the right to bear arms.!!!!!
> 
> It amazes me that something as simple to understand gets mixed up by some people. The founders of this nation recognized that change was going to take place. What they did was provide a mechanism for people to adapt the Constitution to change via the amendment process. Women's right to vote is one example, but you get the drift. If the document was living the courts simply could have ruled that women had the right to vote!!!!!!


To me, the fact that both the actual document can be changed (through amendments) and the principles reevaluated (judicial interpretation) (see loose construction) as opposed to a document that can not be changed in form or meaning (see strict construction) means it is a living document.


----------



## jacobsol80 (Aug 12, 2008)

BigDaddy said:


> Sorry Plainsman, but that dog won't hunt.
> 
> However, I would respect your position more if you would simply acknowledge the fact that the conservatives made purposeful attacks on our personal liberties during the past administration in the name of fear and national security.


If you think the last administration was composed of conservatives, I seriously question your powers of political analysis. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> wait a minute, I have referred to people I know from Europe and Austrailia. I even have relatives in Europe that we are still in some touch with.


But I have not seen you be the first to bring it up as a means to look down your nose at some lowly conservative. You know, like the person who can't drive an American car, decorate their home with American art, or smugly tell your friends "it's European". We have talked with liberals on here that defend socialized medicine because "it's wonderful in Europe", "all my European friends love it" etc  
I guess they think it gives their argument credability. Sorry, I'm more impressed with America. 



> attacks on our personal liberties during the past administration


One of my personal liberties is my right to own firearms. Every democrat administration for years has attacked that liberty. Not to mention trying to steal from the productive and buy votes from the lazy.

I should have added to that list:
If an infant is old enough to talk, but still fills his pampers and blames it on Bush ----- the parents are liberal. 

With all the crap the liberal messiah and his thugs have been pulling do you know what 2010 will look like? It will look like this:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Ron Gilmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is not a living document!!!! Liberals want people to believe that to apply their way of thinking today vs the intent and thinking of the founding fathers. The fact that the Constitution can be amended does not make it a living document. For a prime example of this one only needs to look at the ruling of Heller vs DC. In it the majority of the SC, recognized that militia where and are the people of this nation.
> ...


You are using shallow logic in arriving at this. Your view skims only the surface, a living document would be interpreted,viewed and applied as things change in society without the need for debate, Congress passing laws and the court then taking the age old standards and applying it. Like I said before think hard about what has to happen, to change it. It requires the states approval in a super majority to do so.

Living documents can be changed in a whim.Not so with our Constitution. Thus I understand why Big Daddy runs from the very positions Plainsman lists and then wants to blame Bush!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Everyone....... "A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group.

A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.

However, a living document may evolve through updates, be expanded as needed, and serve a different purpose over time. Living documents are changed through revisions that may or may not reference previous iterative changes. The rate of document decay depends on the structure of the original document, or original intent of such document, or guidelines for modifying such document.

The United States Constitution is sometimes controversially considered a living document as, in non-Originalist jurisprudence, it can be reinterpreted and updated endlessly by judges without actual amendment; see right to privacy and living Constitution.

The common law to which the United States Constitution belongs (in the United States at least) itself is defined by living documents, such as judicial decisions, which can be interpreted to fit the needs of society. Judicial decision and provisions United States Constitution determine how these related documents are modified." (Wikapedia)

So here is what I have to ask.... Can the Constitution be changed or amended? Does a limited group (states, congress, etc) have to have approval for the change? Is a frame work set up for the way it can be changed? The answer to all is YES.

If you don't think it is a living doc....just look at prohibition. They said booze is illegal. Then they said nope it is legal a few years later. That means the doc. Changed over time...which is a living doc.

Now what the liberals want you to think is that they (meaning congress) can just change it.... NO. They speak as if they can just up and change it tomorrow if they see fit. again....NOPE.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the deal....

If the constitution is not a living doc. Why then are people worried about losing the right to own guns? Why are people worried about the loss of freedom of speech?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Again Chuck, your post points to a shallow view of the change. In true context, the changing of the Constitution not laws that the Constitution allows to be made, is not granted to a limited or unrestricted group. It is restricted to a large majority of all the people of the US!!!!! Much different than a limited or unrestricted group!!!!

Interpetations of the laws etc... are part of the document, built in, designed and used for well over 200 years. However, as with the Heller case, and others that directly question the original drafting, the courts who are charged with interpetations have not changed it. The only changes have come as you said, by the long process set down. While it is not a document that cannot be changed, it is far from being easily changed!

We are entering a very interesting time, people who are adamantly opposed to health care are going to make the claim that Congress and the Pres are attempting to change the Constitution or are drafting a law which is outside the authority that the Constitution provides. If the court rules they are changing the Constitution, then an amendment allowing for it will have to be drafted, passed, and ratified. If the Court rules that it is outside the authority then the law is struck down. Also they may rule that neither are applicable!!! But all of this is still within the confines of what the original document provides!!!!!!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Chuck Smith said:


> Here is the deal....
> 
> If the constitution is not a living doc. Why then are people worried about losing the right to own guns? Why are people worried about the loss of freedom of speech?


The part that I always find amazing and hypocritical is that the media will stop at nothing to defend the first amendment and then turn around and demonize or belittle anyone (not just the NRA) who defends the second amendment.

The framers didn't intend for the bill of rights to be changed. That is why they called it such.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

What are liberals doing on this site. Everything Liberals stand for goes against what this site is mainly about. That being the use of the outdoors. You can knit pick but that is basicly it. Feed the fish feed the animals feed the world. But never harvest it. I say to liberals if you are an outdoorsmen and you think you are a Libby or a Demi you are confused but what else is new for a Libby. If your life is the outdoors the Dems are trying to end your life. Believe it. :withstupid:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron....not to split hairs....but what you typed says it is a living doc and can be changed. The process is just long and hard. But it still can be changed....ie a living doc.



> The only changes have come as you said, by the long process set down. While it is not a document that cannot be changed, it is far from being easily changed!


The limited or unrestricted group defined by "living Doc" is the people of the US.....just like you stated.



> the changing of the Constitution not laws that the Constitution allows to be made, is not granted to a limited or unrestricted group. It is restricted to a large majority of all the people of the US!!!!! Much different than a limited or unrestricted group!!!!


Here is the deal.....if enough of the population in the US (a majority) could change the constitution. They just need to go through the process. Think if something gets shoved down the peoples throats...ie health care....an admendment could be written. But that would never happen with so many people wanting a hand out. But in theory it could.

TK... Great point. It needs to be stated again...


> The part that I always find amazing and hypocritical is that the media will stop at nothing to defend the first amendment and then turn around and demonize or belittle anyone (not just the NRA) who defends the second amendment.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck we will have to agree to disagree on this, and maybe it is the context of how the term *Living Document* gets used!

I noticed you took your posting from Wikipeda, which in the same content used the example of a web page as a living document as well. The real point being is that the fundamental foundation of the original Bill of rights has not been changed it has been added to, but not changed! As TK points out, it was never the intent of this to change!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron...
I agree that the liberals who throw out that the Constitution is a living doc are not using it in the right context. They think that they can just change it on a whim.....Not so. But the fact that it can be changed is making it a living doc even if the process is not simple. Liberals think they can change it as they see fit. That is the problem is that they know the meaning of a living document by lawyers standards so they think they can change it like other living documents. Not so....the constitution has a defined process on how you can change it. But it can be changed.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

What can be done and what should be done are two differant things. I see nothing in the constitution that should be changed these are rights I was born with and I wish to keep them. In the Presidential oath the new President must utter the words preserve protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America.. The incoming President must swear to this on a bible not a Koran.Obama when he swore had no intention of doing this.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Watch this. This isn't something new, it's just much closer to reality due to the current administration's views on personal firearm ownership, not to mention their desire to give the UN the power to supercede the Constitution.






If you don't know about IANSA it's time to catch up. Great Britain giving them $2 million in 2001? Unicef collecting money for them? The UN scares me more than a whole bus full of terrorists


----------

