Canadian Born Patriot dominates senate in 4th longest filibuster ever!

[kentonio]

To a point. On the other hand, the original intent was to prevent tyranny of majority from taking away specific rights as deliniated in the Bill of rights.

Checks and balances.

Which makes absolutely no sense. Any part of the constitution can be amended by the 'tyranny of the majority' over time. Your argument only makes any sense if you consider the original constitution to be a perfect document, and if you do then there's a couple of really uncomfortable parts that are no longer in there that you might want to think about.

[DinoDoc]

Jim Crow was also supported by a Majority of the population at one time, Ken.

[giblets]

The Constitution didn't do a very good job of protecting the minority from it.

[kentonio]

Jim Crow was also supported by a Majority of the population at one time, Ken.

So was slavery, and the abolishment of it was also later supported by a majority. Think about what you're saying, if a majority can't over time enact change, then things like the emancipation of women and blacks would never have happened.

[kentonio]

DP

[Imran Siddiqui]

And it was disavowed by a majority as well.

The issue with democracies is we allow folks to make horrible decisions - even if we put roadblocks up.

I'm pretty sure our inability to provide healthcare for all our citizens well after other Western countries did it will be our horrible historical thing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Which makes absolutely no sense.

Concrete evidence that it does in fact make sense, as it is seen as nonsensical to a known conservative.

[kentonio]

Concrete evidence that it does in fact make sense, as it is seen as nonsensical to a known conservative.

Basically (like so many of your ilk) you just want to have your cake and eat it when it comes to the constitution and government.

[DinoDoc]

And it was disavowed by a majority as well.

Ken's argument would have had the black population meekly accept the limitations and abridgement of their rights because a government that is democratic represents the people and should be trusted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't necessarily get that from his posts. I saw more of an MLK, Jr. approach than a Malcolm X approach - ie, work within the system.

[Berzerker]

didn't this dude accuse Hagel of taking $$$ from Iran during a confirmation hearing?

[Dinner]

The court hasn't ruled on it but I suspect that yes it would be upheld.

I'm still opposed to it though.

Several states already require gun registrations and it has been upheld by the courts. It does not violate the 2nd.

[regexcellent]

I live in one with pistol registration. It ****ing sucks and is pointless. Thank god we don't have long gun registration though. To my knowledge no state does, only some cities. Even Canada doesn't have it.

[Dinner]

Moreover, registries aren't actually useful in solving crimes at all, which leaves tracking and confiscation as the only reasons for their implementation.

That's completely incorrect. New York state showed that 3/4ths of the guns used in crimes in New York city came from straw buyers in other states. People who could pass the background check went and bought dozens of guns in a state like North Carolina, drove back to NYC, and then sold the guns for $1200-$1500 to people who couldn't legally buy a gun because they couldn't pass the background check. It's very hard to find out who these straw buyers are (even though what they're doing is completely illegal) because there is no registration and therefor no record. Requiring registration, and thus creating a paper trail, means it becomes very easy to find out who these straw buyers/unlicensed gun dealers are and put them in prison where they belong. That would shut off 3/4ths of the supply for illegal guns and that most certainly would be a massive improvement for public safety as well as solve the problem with criminal straw buyers.

[kentonio]

Ken's argument would have had the black population meekly accept the limitations and abridgement of their rights because a government that is democratic represents the people and should be trusted.

Bull****, your argument would have made the abolition of slavery impossible because apparently a majority deciding something in the constitution is wrong is not grounds for changing it. As I said, this nonsense only makes any sense if you believe the original constitution was a perfect and timeless document, and if you believe that then you're an idiot.