We are on the same page, Richie. However, Supreme Court justices do not write law. They interpret laws to decide which ones are constitutional. Look what the "liberal" justices did for owning guns in Washington DC. The opinion of the Court was that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns in Washington DC - and that was a "liberal" controlled court.

Yes, abortion abolition can be added to the Constitution IF it goes through the long procedure - the same as marriage being defined as between a man and a woman - flag burning - and other hot button issues. The Equal Rights Amendment failed because 3/4 of the states did not ratify it in time given by the Constitution.

Changes can be made to the Constitution but slowly and carefully - like evolution takes a long time. It is an evolving document.

Figmo, my friend -

Congratulations on serving your country for 20 years in the military and 20 in law enforcement. Yet, you say that being in public service is not a career? A law enforcement officer is definitely in public service. I worked for the Federal government for 36 years in the Veterans Administration. I was in public service and very proud of it - as you should be for your service as a law enforcement officer.

No, we do not see eye-to-eye on gun control. You can carry yours if you have the proper permits and I will not. I put down my weapons after getting out of the Army in 1969 and have not picked one up again.

I do agree with you on career politicians.

Yes, I will have a great day. I live in The Villages.

Tbugs,

Let me clarify "Public Service." What I ment by that is elected Public Service. I am leary of anyone who will spend 20 million dollars, every 6 years, for a job that pays 170K a year for 6 years. They are owned by who ever put up the most money to get them elected. They are not serving us, they are the servants to those that own them.

BTW, do you have car insurance? Do you plan on getting in a wreck so that you can use it. I have car insurance and hope that I never have to use it. I am legal to carry my firearm in all 50 states (HR 218) or is it 58 as our current President stated in a speech not to long ago. I would rather have it and never need it, than not have it and need it.

The State of Florida Concealed law does not state that you have to carry a firearm, you can carry mase, taser or a firearm. They did their law correctly.

Please look up the web site that I referrenced. It is very educational and explains a lot about people control, not gun control.

Figmo,

I have no problem with you carrying a weapon. When I worked in Washington DC, I always carried very concentrated pepper spray. Never had to use it but always felt safer. Here in The Villages, there is no need in my viewpoint. However, if you feel safer with your weapon, carry it. I am sure you follow the rules and would never show your weapon as a gesture unless you were going to use it for defense. Remember that person last Christmas time who showed his pistol when someone took his parking space? Dumb move.

I agree with you on politicians.

See, we can get along just fine.

Tbugs,

The DA (Dumb A**) who showed his weapon when someone took his parking space should have had his license revoked, fined and weapon taken away from him. Stupid has no place when dealing with firearms. He was lucky that he did not get shot. Here in New Mexico that could have very well happened.

We will be full timers in TV by the middle of next month. This move has gotten harder than either of us thought, hope that we can get together for a cold one. Me, I do ice tea, but will gladly buy you a beer or beverage of your choice.

I know that we will get along just fine.

The reason batters don't move out of the batters box is becuase they know their batting averages will go down. There are those individual who like to use a sliding scale when it comes to moral issues. As example witness some of todays television show; especially the reality shows. So imagine what would have happen if people in power had free hand at utilizing the US Constituion as an evolving document. The founding fathers did not view this document as living and evolving document and in so not to change its content provided for clarification utilizing amendments thus not disturbing the mother document.

I like what they did and I don't want it changed. I also liked a once civilized and polite society which would be offended and even embarassed by viewing perverted sexual behavior but the devil is out of the can and we will continue to decline.

As most of you might have figured out, when it comes to the Constitution I am a strong support of the Second Amendment.

The government needs to fear us, as a people armed and ready to defend our rights, once gun control (actually people control) is established the rest of the Constitution is meaningless as there will be no way to control or limit anything the US Government wants to do.

I just want to know when we are going to get some "representatives" who we have elected will stand up and start supporting the oath that they took to uphold and honor the Constitution and defend it against foreign or domestic enemies.

Rubicon,

From what I think you said, you like the Constitution as written and do not want it changed. However, I also think you said you agree with the amendment procedures.

If you agree with the premise the Constitution can be amended, you agree that it is a living document that can evolve just like other living things.

The writers of the Constitution did not count slaves as whole people but as 3/5 of others for representation and taxation purposes. Well, that evolved when the 13th Amendment was ratified and abolished slavery. Women could not vote when the Constitution was written but that evolved with the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Evolution means slow change due to time. The Constitution is evolving. America is evolving. Even plants, animals, and people are constantly evolving.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Rubicon,

From what I think you said, you like the Constitution as written and do not want it changed. However, I also think you said you agree with the amendment procedures.

If you agree with the premise the Constitution can be amended, you agree that it is a living document that can evolve just like other living things.

The writers of the Constitution did not count slaves as whole people but as 3/5 of others for representation and taxation purposes. Well, that evolved when the 13th Amendment was ratified and abolished slavery. Women could not vote when the Constitution was written but that evolved with the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Evolution means slow change due to time. The Constitution is evolving. America is evolving. Even plants, animals, and people are constantly evolving.

The Constitution cannot ever evolve. That is liberal b.s. speak. The Constitution can only be Amended. Of course, as we've discussed before, that process has been usurped by liberal judges.

Richie,just not true...conservative judges are guilty of the same practice and to deny this is very wrong.

Originally Posted by waynet

Richie,just not true...conservative judges are guilty of the same practice and to deny this is very wrong.

Well, lets just say judges then, although I still am certain it's mainly a problem with liberal judges.

The process of passing an Amendment to the Constitution has all but been relegated to the dust bin of history with the acceptance of unelected judges, appointed by the people who want to change law in an expedient and illegal manner, making new law with decisions concocted with wildly inventive new "interpretations", and not enforcing the law as written.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Well, lets just say judges then, although I still am certain it's mainly a problem with liberal judges.

The process of passing an Amendment to the Constitution has all but been relegated to the dust bin of history with the acceptance of unelected judges, appointed by the people who want to change law in an expedient and illegal manner, making new law with decisions concocted with wildly inventive new "interpretations", and not enforcing the law as written.

Seems to me the founding fathers would not mean to support lunatic fringe religious sects picketing the funerals of our brave servicemen and women who gave their lives to preserve the constitution.

Originally Posted by ladydoc

Seems to me the founding fathers would not mean to support lunatic fringe religious sects picketing the funerals of our brave servicemen and women who gave their lives to preserve the constitution.

Hot button issue, but I would say you're wrong in your assessment of what the founding fathers felt was protected free speech. Of course, the "lunatic fringe" is also free to have their butts kicked.