Quote:
GRD spake:
Also, I understand that the BoR, comprised of the first 10 Articles, cannot be 'repealed' or altered in any way...vote or no vote. Only the subsequent amendments are vulnerable to adjustment. The BoR enumerates (as pdog pointed out) pre-existing, unalienable rights that are inherent to a free people, and wholly necessary, and as such are not subject to the whims of the majority or the winds of change.
|
Gabe, actually, that's not the case. What we call the "Bill of Rights" is nothing more than ten amendments to the Constitution. They were introduced in and passed by Congress, and then ratified by the states just like any other amendment. As such, they can be repealed in the same manner as any other amendment (or any other part of the Constitution, for that matter).
Minor point I like to make to lefties regarding the Bill of Rights: Many of them love to proclaim how the 1st amendment was proposed first because it's so much more important than the rest. It's fun to watch their faces when pointing out that their beloved 1st was actually 3rd in a list of twelve. When they don't believe me, I point them to the
National Archives website image of the original document as written to present to Congress. Oh, and for the record, the original 2nd amendment is now the 27th amendment, having been ratified by a sneak attack from the states in 1992.
pdog, who were the guests?
Quote:
pdog barked:
the comment that the real debate about the 2nd Am. should not be about individual vs. collective, but rather if it should be repealed or not?
|
Do you remember which guest made this comment? Was it one of the pro-2A people or the antis? If an anti, then it seems to me that this statement implies acceptance that the 2nd means what we claim, and that the only way to get their way is to repeal it.