another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

[gadjo_dilo]

I don't even activate my burglar alarm at night and often leave the back door unlocked by accident.

So no signs of my compatriots of a certain ethnic in your area....

[ArrowsFA1]

US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence.

Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.

[Rollo]

Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.

[Tazio]

US Senators take an oath of office to uphold the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states via the 2nd Amendment that it's citizens have the right to bear arms. Therefore, for a Senator to want to circumvent the Constitution is a clear violation of their oath of office, an impeachable offence

Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.

Just for the record:

Representatives and Senators typically collectively propose up to 200 amendments during each term of Congress;[1]
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chuck's contention of Senator’s oath to the Constitution of The United States of America in this matter is completely erroneous, or has there been a rash of Senatorial impeachments in The United States of America that slipped past my notice?

Or maybe he is confusing them with the Republicans oath that they were pressured into signing (anti-tax pledges obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington) decreed by the will of creepy Grover Norquist

[Rudy Tamasz]

Whilst the constitution can be amended from time to time, I fear that the American people can not. The staunch stubbornness to hold onto an eighteenth century rule book, despite it producing death, says to me that we are talking about an eighteenth century set of attitudes.

Why do you waste your and everybody else's time here ranting on the subject?

[chuck34]

Again I ask: are you going to apologise for this assertion?

Probably not. At least not until you apologize for insulting every gun owner as ignorant, fearful, paranoid, and not worthy of any respect. Oh I'm sorry not every gun owner, only American gun owners, as you seem perfectly happy with Swiss gun owners that go around killing their own, and presumably others as well.

[chuck34]

One other thing — I have no idea why you respect my thoughts, given that you disagree with them. By all means respect the right to have them, but I think respecting the thoughts themselves is a cop-out when you oppose them.

No respectful disagreement is the foundation for civil discourse.

[chuck34]

Herein rests the problem.

There have been a number of amendments to the US Constitution. Doesn't that mean that those proposing an amendment were violating their oath of office because they were not upholding the constitution as it was written?

Clearly that's being facecious, but the point is that the Constitution has been amended. It is not cast in stone. It can be amended.

You completely misunderstand. Senator Feinstein is proposing a common law that abridges Constitutionally protected rights. That is what I have a problem with. If she were proposing an amendment, I would have not support said change, but I would support her right to propose that change.

It is as if she were to propose a common law that states you no longer have the right to post anything on the internet that opposes her views. That would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, right? And therefore unconstitutional, right? The 2nd Amendment is no different.

Clear as mud now?

[chuck34]

Just for the record:

Chuck's contention of Senator’s oath to the Constitution of The United States of America in this matter is completely erroneous, or has there been a rash of Senatorial impeachments in The United States of America that slipped past my notice?

Or maybe he is confusing them with the Republicans oath that they were pressured into signing (anti-tax pledges obtained from nearly all the Republican politicians in Washington) decreed by the will of creepy Grover Norquist

NO no no. Perhaps I am not being expressly clear, although I thought I was. Proposing COMMON law to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution is what I have issue with. If she were proposing to amend the Constitution, that would be an entirely different story.

[Tazio]

NO no no. Perhaps I am not being expressly clear, although I thought I was. Proposing COMMON law to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution is what I have issue with. If she were proposing to amend the Constitution, that would be an entirely different story.

Ok Ok I get it. What we have here is a Senator in the process of trying to get a bill passed into law. If it were to pass it would be up to the Supreme Court to uphold it or rule it unconstitutional upon challenge. Nothing in her procedure is outside the normal workings of legislation in our great Republic, in fact it is quite the norm, and you should know that whether you agree with her proposed legislation or not.