Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[compuwiz1]

You sound very confused.

My judgement of your mental state is based on the things you are saying and the way you point your points across. You simply aren't capable of rational discussion about gun ownership.

I don't need to discuss gun ownership in any way that makes sense to lefties. My rights are settled in law. Anyone advocating for revocation of my rights is inherently my enemy. What you would consider rational discussion would be me conceding. I just won't do that. The inch you want me to give would result in people like you taking a mile.

 

[Veliko]

I don't need to discuss gun ownership in any way that makes sense to lefties. My rights are settled in law. Anyone advocating for revocation of my rights is inherently my enemy. What you would consider rational discussion would be me conceding. I just won't do that. The inch you want me to give would result in people like you taking a mile.

Right, so we're agreed that my judgement of your mental state is based on the things you are saying and the way you point your points across, rather than because you own a firearm.

 

[ivwshane]

You are quite lit


Right, so we're agreed that my judgement of your mental state is based on the things you are saying and the way you point your points across, rather than because you own a firearm.

Hey watch it now! Sure he's a responsible gun owner now but as he said, he hasn't killed anyone "yet", and you certainly don't want to try and change the law through the constitutional process that our founding fathers gave us because then you'd be his "enemy" and he'd be the first to initiate a "civil war" and kill some liberals!

You totally didn't nail him as some mentally unfit gun Nutter though./eye roll

I get a good laugh at the way liberals go after the 2nd and the NRA, like they are the cause of the craziness that has been happening. Nothing but the mentality of those people is to blame for their murderous activity and they will find a way to maim and kill, with or without guns. Start taking the majority of people's rights away because of the actions of a minority and we're talking civil war. The majority isn't having any of it.

So to those who wish to infringe.....Fuck Off!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Whatever, scarecrow...

Trust me, this old man doesn't have handlers, unlike you sheep, who were indoctrinated by your liberal profs. Walk that line and whatever you do, do not step outside your square. Continue to be that good, well behaved, little liberal lap dog of the left.

This libtard was raised in a Protestant household, and went to Christian School.

How's that bullshit stereotype working out for you?

 

[ch33zw1z]

No, and No.

Under any war effort; TFP is active. TFP is Total Force Policy. In which... essentially, it is a huge dormant draft. Where selective services applies to military, TFP applies to all. So, one can dodge the military, but no one can dodge the Militia.

TFP makes unorganized miltia's well regulated by definition of what occurs when the UOM becomes part of the State and National Defense Force.


Meaning, 2nd amendment and current US code can not block anyone from keeping and bearing "ARMS".

Anyone being => all able-bodied males and any fems in NG.

Real quick, can we define able bodied?

 

[ivwshane]

Real quick, can we define able bodied?

I want to know how a definition/law from the the 1950's dictates what the founding fathers meant by militia 150 years before it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I want to know how a definition/law from the the 1950's dictates what the founding fathers meant by militia 150 years before it.

We have a process we can go thru to change our interpretation, to those who would question that, why do you hate America?

 

[Puffnstuff]

We have a process we can go thru to change our interpretation, to those who would question that, why do you hate America?

This is why any changes should be in Title 18 making it law with express terms that are not open to interpretation.

 

[Atreus21]

So, back to the poll... we have 104 votes, with 70% saying "no." There is no mandate to repeal the 2A. This gives me comfort because similar numbers would prevail across the country. Good thing liberalism doesn't represent more than about 25% of the population. We're not quite screwed yet.

Well...

I think its debatable. I'd argue that most liberals want restrictions on guns that can't exist alongside the 2nd amendment, or at least not the dominant interpretation of it.

Furthermore I think even if we put into place the bulk of the non-extreme measures proposed (assault rife ban, universal background checks, etc) that we'd still see mass shootings. Does anyone really think we wouldn't see more calls for gun control afterwards? I asked this question earlier.

I still think that mass shootings can't be significantly curtailed without a severe reduction in gun prevalence, and I don't see how you can get there with the 2nd amendment in place.

Also I wonder if people would vote the same if repealing it weren't as practically difficult as it is.

 

[Atreus21]

I want to know how a definition/law from the the 1950's dictates what the founding fathers meant by militia 150 years before it.

Eugene Volokh again.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 4

Compare this to the Second Amendment:

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. 5

The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 6

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says:

The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 7

I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

1. They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.
2. They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer served by the right.
3. They show that operative clauses are often both broader and narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it furthers the goals identified in the justification clause. 8
4. They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.

 

[ivwshane]

Eugene Volokh again.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Except, of course, that interpretation is contradicted by the constitution itself when it refers to militia in other instances in the document and when it specifically states that the government has the duty to put down insurrection and rebellions.

Kind of odd to have a right to rebel and then specify that the government has the duty to put down that rebellion.

Its also kind of odd to have a set of rules and procedures that allow for change via the people but then to have a formal rule, with no specifications as to when that rule gets invoked, that says the people can override the rules and processes when an unspecified number of people feel like it.

Democracy under threat of the gun is no democracy (or a representative republic).

 

[Muse]

It won't be, but, I think some level of disarming is inevitable.
1. Let the hunters keep their hunting weapons.
2. Let the country folks keep their weapons as they have legitimate uses.
3. Let the sport shooters keep their sport shooting guns.
4. Let the hoarders who keep them under lock and key keep them.

5 but, keep them off the streets and out of the cities.

Trouble is 5. is hard to achieve unless you do away with 1-4. All of these people can have their guns if they are registered and stored at designated facilities. You check out your gun to hunt. If you have a legitimate use, same. Sport shooting, same. Hoarders, no, you don't get to keep them. Make it illegal to own a gun and they will disappear. What's the point of owning a weapon if it's a ticket to prison?

Repeal.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Criminal record, domestic violence, drug use, etc. already disqualifies someone from owning or carrying a gun legally.

Fuck your boyfriend loophole

 

[compuwiz1]

Trouble is 5. is hard to achieve unless you do away with 1-4. All of these people can have their guns if they are registered and stored at designated facilities. You check out your gun to hunt. If you have a legitimate use, same. Sport shooting, same. Hoarders, no, you don't get to keep them. Make it illegal to own a gun and they will disappear. What's the point of owning a weapon if it's a ticket to prison?

Repeal.

Wrong. Make it illegal to own a gun and criminals will still have them. You are delusional. If the government can get that involved in our lives, we will have some serious problems and greatly diminished freedoms, because if what you are advocating happens, the next will be other rights. NO! You are either an incredibly stupid, easily triggered individual, or worse, an outright brown shirt commie. Which is it?

 

[ivwshane]

Wrong. Make it illegal to own a gun and criminals will still have them. You are delusional. If the government can get that involved in our lives, we will have some serious problems and greatly diminished freedoms, because if what you are advocating happens, the next will be other rights. NO! You are either an incredibly stupid, easily triggered individual, or worse, an outright brown shirt commie. Which is it?

Brilliant logic right there folks!

Btw, we know who the stupid, triggered, brown shirt is. Hint: it's the guy who is willing to kill his fellow Americans because people want to legally change the laws.

 

[Veliko]

"Greatly diminished freedoms"

Could you expand on this? As far I can see, making it illegal to own a gun would mean the list of diminished freedoms would be:

1) Cannot own a gun.

 

[compuwiz1]

Brilliant logic right there folks!

Btw, we know who the stupid, triggered, brown shirt is. Hint: it's the guy who is willing to kill his fellow Americans because people want to legally change the laws.

What people want to change the laws? Not the majority. Most Americans value our rights and way of life. I wouldn't harm anyone, but if you bring me a fight, I will damn sure fight back, especially if it's on my property, involving ANY of my personal property.

1. This is not a winnable fight and you know it, so why pick it?
2. Any political candidate who runs on this idea of repealing, especially in a national election, will handily lose.
3. If you do not respect our rights and are uncomfortable with our way of life, you might want to consider moving somewhere, where they do it your way. I'll help you pack. Hell, I might even buy your one way ticket, if you sign a contract, promising to never return. lol!

 

[compuwiz1]

"Greatly diminished freedoms"

Could you expand on this? As far I can see, making it illegal to own a gun would mean the list of diminished freedoms would be:

1) Cannot own a gun.

Erosion is a process. If the 2nd were to be repealed, what is to guarantee that the 1st, 4th and others wouldn't be? They'll say "we got that done, what else can we take, to gain further control over the people?" I want a less intrusive government, not more.

 

[Veliko]

Erosion is a process. If the 2nd were to be repealed, what is to guarantee that the 1st, 4th and others wouldn't be? They'll say "we got that done, what else can we take, to gain further control over the people?" I want a less intrusive government, not more.

Who would say that?

And again, what are the "greatly diminished freedoms" that would occur if owning a firearm was criminalised?

 

[ivwshane]

What people want to change the laws? Not the majority. Most Americans value our rights and way of life. I wouldn't harm anyone, but if you bring me a fight, I will damn sure fight back, especially if it's on my property, involving ANY of my personal property.

1. This is not a winnable fight and you know it, so why pick it?
2. Any political candidate who runs on this idea of repealing, especially in a national election, will handily lose.
3. If you do not respect our rights and are uncomfortable with our way of life, you might want to consider moving somewhere, where they do it your way. I'll help you pack. Hell, I might even buy your one way ticket, if you sign a contract, promising to never return. lol!

Lol triggered

 

[compuwiz1]

Lol triggered

Not at all, my little penile stunted, retro grade ejaculating, munchkin friend.

 

[Thebobo]

We don't have a gun problem, we have a heart problem. I say bring back god to the classrooms and teach the value of life to the kids. We have strayed too far from the flock.

But which one? Becuase for me the Sumerian gods are the bestest since they started it all, Dumuzi, Enk, Enlil, Ereskigal, Inanna, Lilithor maybe Nammu?

I would be ok with Nmmu in the classroom.

 

[brycejones]

Not at all, my little penile stunted, retro grade ejaculating, munchkin friend.

That sounds like something ripped off from Zin.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Not at all, my little penile stunted, retro grade ejaculating, munchkin friend.

Are you our resident peeping Tom?

 

[Kneedragger]

Ok so my question for the "ban all firearms" group is.. If we ban all firearms and all the legal owners turn in their firearms what will we do next about all the illegal firearms still coming in and out there in criminals hands?