Just out of curiosity, how does one take an oath to uphold the constitution and at the same time change it? I suppose if you don't like it don't take the oath. Also...re 250 years ago...the founding fathers should have put an expiration date on the constitution, I'm sure they knew their history, societies change etc
Nutmeg. Please. Your question is embarrasing. The Constitution itself in its original form contains a provision which allows for amending the Constitution. The Constitution is inherently flexible. Any amendment can change or nullify any article or amendment of the Constitution, or add to it anew. How do you suppose that an amendment outlawed alcohol in1920 and an amendment in 1933 nullified prohibition? As an example, the originals articles of the Constitution gave voting rights to males (white). 130 years later, an amendment granted franchise (that means the right to vote) to women. It is theoretically possible that an amendment could be passed that outlaws Christianity and establishes Islamicism as a state religion. Not remotely likely, but theoretically possible. The Constitution is the law of the land. The Constitution allows for amendment, which changes the Constitution. And change it anyway the people decide in accordance with the rules established by the Constitution. Practically speaking, the hurdles are extemely high - Congressional approval and 2/3 states majority - but anything is theoretically possible. So once one declares an oath to uphold the Constitution, one must respect, honor, and defend the article which describes the method for amendment. The country could also establish an amendment which abolishes the process for amendment, thereby freezing for eternity the fundamental laws of the land or the arrival by revolution of a new government. Your right to a gun is written in stone. Lot's of chipping is required to reshape that stone, but the stone finds a new shape once the chisels reach a 2/3 majority.
How do you get a civilian version of a military weapon? In the twain the two are not supposed to meet meet. I love it. GM can offer a civilian version of a M1A1 Abrams tank. It only fires one armor piercing shell per trigger pull. Tell me Piggy, where can I find one?
As opposed to what ? Adulterated opinion? Of course it is opinion! Do you think you are clever because you can point out that my point of view is an opinion? A CIVILIAN version of a military weapon! I am sure that the 20 six year olds took comfort in the fact that the bullets tearing through them in thier last seconds were delivered by a good CIVILIAN weapon. They died knowing that they were killed by a legal CIVILIAN weapon. And thier parents, God bless them, have the comfort knowing that thier little loved ones were murdered and chopped to pieces by nothing less than a CIVILIAN weapon. The weapon was civil after all, so it's okay. Good thing we have CIVILIAN weapons. Imagine if our civilians had military weapons. Adam Lanza would not have even had to enter the school. He could have fired mortars and shells from afar, anonymously. It's a good thing that CIVILIAN versions of military weapons let our first graders see who is actually murdering them. Why send them to the grave with unanswered questions?
Actually I think either the French or German main battle tank uses a mechanical loader, as opposed to a human loader. But then I doubt bong boy knew that either.