Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment?

[jtpr312]

Bring it up to date. I blame the us, the American people not just the Republican party for allowing that Amendment to remain an archaic part of the constitution, and all for votes and money. We will never stop violence nor the nuts in America but that does not mean we should stop trying. And for America to make it so easy for the nuts to get the means to kill children wholesale is unbelievable.
The Court is not the answer they are just robed politicians with a great job. If one reads the second amendment it sounds like something from the dark ages. That period has long passed. Our militias are now part of the nut groups.

Funny enough, it's been in nations that had the most stringent gun contol laws in modern history that had the highest rates of murdered children in modern history. China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany to pick three. Untold millions of children murdered by the very people that enacted and enforced those stringent gun control laws. I don't know about you slick, but I don't trust the leaders in this nation that much. I don't see them being any different or any less capable of committing mass atrocities than the men who led in China, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and I for one will not submit to alowing them to be the only ones armed. Our Founders put the 2nd Amerndment in the Constituion not to protect us from the occasional car jacker, rapist or armed robber, but to protect us from leaders like they have/had in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and China.

Once the government starts manufacturing ways to kill the children, they can use that to persuade the people to agree to almost anything. What's the deaths of 20 children compared to the number of dead children China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Iran, or any other totalitarian nation created? It's nothing. If liberals could use 20 children to disarm the people that's a pittance. They are prepared to murder millions if necessary to create the liberal utopia they intend to create.

They already condone and support the murder of over a 1,000,000 innocent lives a year in the womb for nothing but the sake of convienance. Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. They wail and cry over 20, yet vociferiously spew that woman should have the right to kill over 1,000,000 a year because they're inconvienant. Stalin said 1 death is a tragedy, 1,000,000 a statistic, seems like the American socialist thinks up to 20 can be a tragedy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roo is davying again at Projection Central.

Really, go read the Constitution, Roo, you will discover amazing things.

Poor little Jake, projection at its finest.

Roo can't read and understand the Constitution is the problem.

You extremist radicals endanger all of the mainstream society with your stupidity.

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

 

[Politico]

Not remove but modify.

Personally..I have no problem with people owning guns to protect their homes or businesses.

No citizen should be allowed to carry guns in the streets.

All law abiding citizens that legally own their firearms should be allowed to carry them where ever the hell they want.

No "modifications" to the 2nd amendment needed.

Yes there should be. To reflect that more clearly.


And maybe we could throw something in there to move matthew to his own island.

 

[Antares]

There ya go, Jake is on record as saying that the second amendment does not guarantee our rights to own guns.

Roo is davying again at Projection Central.

Really, go read the Constitution, Roo, you will discover amazing things.

Poor little Jake, projection at its finest.

Roo can't read and understand the Constitution is the problem.

You extremist radicals endanger all of the mainstream society with your stupidity.

 

[daveman]

Roo is merely a daveman cartoon. Neither make any sense.

Fakey, someone on USMB a leftist is getting his ass handed to him. Run to his defense!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roo just lied, for I support the 2nd Amendment, knowing that it is absolute.

And daveman just davyed, knowing his radical extremism is despised by the great majority of America.

You guys will not get your way on this one.

 

[Antares]

It is a little creepy, jake is stalking me...does he have a history of this?

Roo is merely a daveman cartoon. Neither make any sense.

Fakey, someone on USMB a leftist is getting his ass handed to him. Run to his defense!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roo is projecting his stalking onto me: his actions are typical of a radicaldooshwad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

The Second Amendment was very much in need of interpretation, to resolve the question as to whether the Amendment enshrined a collective right or an individual right.

In Heller the Court inferred a right to self-defense, and the handgun the means to exercise that right to self-defense, although the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ appear nowhere in the Amendment.

We see the same process with regard to Griswold/Roe/Casey, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of the state to violate the right to privacy by banning abortion.

This manifest, therefore, a conundrum for both the partisan left and right.

In order for conservatives to be consistent in their opposition to privacy rights concerning abortion, they must be just as opposed to the ‘made up’ right of self-defense with regard to firearms.

Likewise, in order for liberals to be consistent with regard to their opposition to the right to self-defense and individual gun ownership, they must be just as opposed to the ‘made up’ right to privacy with regard to abortion.

It’s vitally important to understand, however, what Griswold/Roe/Casey and Heller/McDonald have in common: they both place limits on the power of government – which is an infinitely more important concern than whether one may have an abortion or own a firearm.

 

[Antares]

Well then, you just shit in your own breakfast bowl.....

The 2nd Amendment is indeed absolute.....did you want to move on to the 3/5 clause?

Roo just lied, for I support the 2nd Amendment, knowing that it is absolute.

And daveman just davyed, knowing his radical extremism is despised by the great majority of America.

You guys will not get your way on this one.

 

[Antares]

The Second Amendment was very much in need of interpretation, to resolve the question as to whether the Amendment enshrined a collective right or an individual right.


Actually it didn't.

It was clear from the beginning, the strategy of those who disagree with it was to muddy it up and hope for favorable ruling from a friendly court.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

The Second Amendment was very much in need of interpretation, to resolve the question as to whether the Amendment enshrined a collective right or an individual right.

In Heller the Court inferred a right to self-defense, and the handgun the means to exercise that right to self-defense, although the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ appear nowhere in the Amendment.

We see the same process with regard to Griswold/Roe/Casey, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of the state to violate the right to privacy by banning abortion.

This manifest, therefore, a conundrum for both the partisan left and right.

In order for conservatives to be consistent in their opposition to privacy rights concerning abortion, they must be just as opposed to the ‘made up’ right of self-defense with regard to firearms.

Likewise, in order for liberals to be consistent with regard to their opposition to the right to self-defense and individual gun ownership, they must be just as opposed to the ‘made up’ right to privacy with regard to abortion.

It’s vitally important to understand, however, what Griswold/Roe/Casey and Heller/McDonald have in common: they both place limits on the power of government – which is an infinitely more important concern than whether one may have an abortion or own a firearm.

 

[saveliberty]

Limits on government, like government is going to listen.

Hence, an amendment to provide citizens with a means to limit government.

One of the key reasons the Bill of Rights was added.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RooDoosh is stumbling.

Ownership is absolute, and regulations are part of that, meaning technology modifications to the law (assault weapons and magazine loads and training and etc) are on the way and unstoppable.

Well then, you just shit in your own breakfast bowl.....

The 2nd Amendment is indeed absolute.....did you want to move on to the 3/5 clause?

Roo just lied, for I support the 2nd Amendment, knowing that it is absolute.

And daveman just davyed, knowing his radical extremism is despised by the great majority of America.

You guys will not get your way on this one.

 

[Antares]

Does this mean you don't want to discuss the 3/5 clause?

RooDoosh is stumbling.

Ownership is absolute, and regulations are part of that, meaning technology modifications to the law (assault weapons and magazine loads and training and etc) are on the way and unstoppable.

Well then, you just shit in your own breakfast bowl.....

The 2nd Amendment is indeed absolute.....did you want to move on to the 3/5 clause?

Roo just lied, for I support the 2nd Amendment, knowing that it is absolute.

And daveman just davyed, knowing his radical extremism is despised by the great majority of America.

You guys will not get your way on this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've been bitch slapped from the start of this conversation, you've alseo stated that the Constitution as written is irrelevant......and now you want it both ways.

You are out of your league kid.

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

The joke's on you because I fully support the 2nd amendment and it's on record here on this forum somewhere from long ago.

What I don't support are ignorant fucks like you who can't get ANYTHING right.

Really? Do we still elect Senators indirectly? Can the President still serve as many terms as he wants, if he wins election?

 

[daveman]

It is a little creepy, jake is stalking me...does he have a history of this?

Oh, yeah, he's quite the little leg-humper.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My goodness, you're not very bright, are you?

The 10th Amendment says you're full of crap.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.​

But by all means, continue flailing. It's amusing watching you believe you've scored a devastating blow.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

So, you fucked up -- and it's MY fault.

In principle, I believe RvW is not based on the Constitution...so why should I support it? To assuage your petulant whining?

Not happening, Zippy. Get used to it.

In principle, you believe in small government and states rights, until it conflicts with your agenda, and then you believe in big government and fuck the states.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does this mean you don't want to discuss the 3/5 clause?

RooDoosh is stumbling.

Ownership is absolute, and regulations are part of that, meaning technology modifications to the law (assault weapons and magazine loads and training and etc) are on the way and unstoppable.

Well then, you just shit in your own breakfast bowl.....

The 2nd Amendment is indeed absolute.....did you want to move on to the 3/5 clause?

Let's talk about the election of Senators, and presidential term limits.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, while the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms...

The constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Which means the Federal Government could effectively stop all trade of weapons that cross state or national borders...

Theoretically.

Not that I'd be in favor of this happening, but it'd be legal.

 

[Antares]

Carb, are you a control freak?

Is that why you live alone?

Does this mean you don't want to discuss the 3/5 clause?

RooDoosh is stumbling.

Ownership is absolute, and regulations are part of that, meaning technology modifications to the law (assault weapons and magazine loads and training and etc) are on the way and unstoppable.

Let's talk about the election of Senators, and presidential term limits.