Al, I only buy “zero drop” shoes, so lifts make no logical sense. Also I have so many shoes that if I had to buy a 1” lift for every pair then I’d be broke. Any lift in any shoe would cause spine and back issues, which I don’t want.Rod, If you are an independent, you must wear a 1" lift in your left shoe.
Well that went directly over your head!Al, I only buy “zero drop” shoes, so lifts make no logical sense. Also I have so many shoes that if I had to buy a 1” lift for every pair then I’d be broke. Any lift in any shoe would cause spine and back issues, which I don’t want.
food for thought for those that may not remember that amendments to the united states constitution are not just merely tweeks to the constitution, but the first 10 amendments comprise the document more formally known as our bill of rights...
bill of rights - bill of rights institute
so let’s be careful when we talk about just re-writing any amendments....
Food for thought for those that may not remember that Amendments to the United States Constitution are not just merely tweeks to the Constitution, but the first 10 Amendments comprise the document more formally known as our Bill of Rights...
Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute
So let’s be careful when we talk about just re-writing any Amendments....
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeup...they have...and they came to that assertion thru INTERPRETATION - NOT by quoting/pointing out anything the F.F.'s wrote/said on the topic.Having said that, and in contrast to Larry's assertions, the Supreme Court has clearly outlined that this right is not without limitations and restrictions.
Wouldn’t Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution suffice in this instance? Given that the Second amendment refers specifically to a “well regulated militia”.
...in 21st century America I fail to see a senario where a state would be forced to raise a militia to defend its self from the federal government. So isn’t the whole second amendment being taken totally out of context? Both historically and contextually?
Larry, the constitution was drafted and intended to be somewhat vague in many seemingly critical areas. Some viewed this as a weakness. Madison initially felt defeated as he wanted more robust language. In time, he (and most others) came to agree that the lack of clearly defined language was a strength that allowed the govt to adapt and grow with the times. It is clear that the language does not clearly state the right to bear arms was an individual right. SCOTUS "clarified" this. They also clarified that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. It is duplicitous to agree with the rulings you like and disagree with the rulings you don't and say they're not supported by the constitution. They've also clarified that even free speech is not unlimited (also not explicitly stated in the Constitution). The strength of the document is its adaptability in changing times. The right to bear arms evolves a bit as times change. Congress writes laws, the SCOTUS interprets them or strikes them down. It is highly unlikely the SCOTUS will change it's interpretation of 2A much based on the current makeup of the court. It's also unlikely that millennials and non-whites elected to congress in the next 10-20 years will change it either.
Larry, and yet there have been numerous laws written that modify to some extent the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has ruled that at least some of these are legal, though not all. Hence, the right is not absolute. You are reading the constitution very concretely, which it was never written as such. You are doing so in order to reinforce your opinion, just as you are choosing to agree with laws you agree with and disagree with laws you don't. It's fine to do that (although acting on your beliefs could render you a criminal) but the basis for your belief is not the constitution, it is only your belief system. There is no support amongst constitutional scholars for your assertions, just as the word "NO" that you keep using in the context of "No law infringing" is no where in the amendment. The amendment reads:
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.
SCOTUS has ruled that the current restrictions on gun ownership do not constitute infringinement. Your insistence on the verbage above is a misrepresentation that supports your beliefs, but is essentially a lie. There is no verbage "No law infringing" or anything of the sort.