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

[daveman]

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.

Again -- how are you going to get criminals to obey that law?

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

So...you want law-abiding people to face armed criminals with no means of self-defense.

Why is this a good thing?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Not remove but modify.

Well, if after we do that, how about modifications to disallow free speech? How how about we REALLY tick off the liberals and modify it to prohibit a woman's "right to choose"? Boy!!! That'll show 'em, won't it!?! The lefts' heads would explode!!

How about, while we're at it, we take away the right to vote for "dumb black guys" like me? Or better yet, stop allowing those ignorant "single white women" from voting?

No thank you. I"ll take your "Archaic" version over your "new, improved" version any day of the week and three times on Sunday.

Lord, what's next? Folks erecting statues to that murderer Che Gueverra!?!

There are plenty of laws that disallow free speech.

Try yelling fire in a movie theater or bomb on a plane in the airport.

See where that gets ya.

You are, indeed, correct. And there are (literally) HUNDREDS of laws that cover every aspect of owning a weapon. Hundreds. Background checks, carry laws, laws restricting WHERE a weapon can be, laws covering when a weapon can be used, laws covering the age of the owner, laws covering the MENTAL STABILITY of the individual, laws covering magazine capacity, laws covering the size and weight of ammunition, laws covering the makeup of ammunition, etc etc etc, ad nauseum.

Funny thing. One would think that the various police organizations would prosecute the tens of thousands of inner city folk who walk around with guns in their waist bands. They do not.

Funny thing about law enforcement..the tend to show up LONG AFTER (in terms of minutes) an incident, then we, the viewing public, are treated to police officers, dressed in battle gear (just like GIs) and they run around with their M4s and tactical shotguns looking something like keystone cops yelling at the "survivors" to raise their hands.

Shoot, I don't blame them; they have families to go home to, too.

 

[daveman]

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.

The second amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership.

And it never has.

We've corrupted the original intent.

SCOTUS trumps angry internet retards.

 

[daveman]

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

Then why would you support giving criminals an advantage?

They don't.

Of course you do, if you don't want law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves in the street.

 

[daveman]

we dont need to remove it.

the founders worded in such a way we can police guns in any way we need to

Again: SCOTUS trumps angry internet retards.

 

[Truthmatters]

can you own a rocketlauncher?

 

[tjvh]

Not remove but modify.

Sorry... The Constitution is just fine, I'm sorry if you have difficulty but the words Shall not be infringed are pretty clear... How you decide to interpret the Constitution with your liberal ideology simply isn't my problem.

 

[Sallow]

Again -- how are you going to get criminals to obey that law?

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

So...you want law-abiding people to face armed criminals with no means of self-defense.

Why is this a good thing?

States and localities create a group of government workers charged with that task.

They are called "police".

Catch up.

 

[Sallow]

Not remove but modify.

Sorry... The Constitution is just fine, I'm sorry if you have difficulty but the words Shall not be infringed are pretty clear... How you decide to interpret the Constitution with your liberal ideology simply isn't my problem.

Are "defense of the state" and "militias" clear too?

 

[daveman]

can you own a rocketlauncher?

You do know, don't you, that a rocket launcher is just a tube? The rocket itself is the scary dangerous part?

No. You probably don't.

 

[Truthmatters]

Not remove but modify.

Sorry... The Constitution is just fine, I'm sorry if you have difficulty but the words Shall not be infringed are pretty clear... How you decide to interpret the Constitution with your liberal ideology simply isn't my problem.

The SCOTUS has already allowed arms to be made illegal.

 

[Truthmatters]

there are arms that you are not allowed to own already.

 

[daveman]

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

So...you want law-abiding people to face armed criminals with no means of self-defense.

Why is this a good thing?

States and localities create a group of government workers charged with that task.

They are called "police".

Catch up.

The police are not legally required to protect citizens.

Catch up.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[007]

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

Then why would you support giving criminals an advantage?

They don't.

Replies like this strip you of any credibility.

Much of the reason I usually just ignore you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

No ‘leftist’ want’s to remove the Second Amendment.

And the notion of a constitutional convention for one issue is extreme. If it every came to that it would be better to balkanize the Nation, as we are too divided to agree on a new constitution.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Maybe we should collect a passel of Liberals and carry out a Little Big Horn style show and tell event, without guns of course. What did JFK say shortly before his assassination "If someone is determined enough to kill him, they will do so, despite whatever we do to prevent them"
Garrot, sword, bayonet, K bar, flamethrower, noose are all effective means, you just have to get more up close and personal in their use.
"God created mankind. Sam Colt just made them all equal"
Perhaps we should turn our attention and fury on the therapist who enabled the former Ms Lanza to obtain her divorce from the then Mister, leaving young Adam, suffering from a mental disorder, bereft of a father figure and a certain amount of necessary order in his life.
One commenter noted that schizophrenia manifests itself most severely around the age of twenty, exactly Mr Lanza's age. One very fortunate lady, now elderly, happened to have returned home after work from not her usual direction to find her son, in his early twenties then, seated in an upstairs window with a rifle across his lap awaiting her return home from her usual direction.

 

[RandallFlagg]

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

So...you want law-abiding people to face armed criminals with no means of self-defense.

Why is this a good thing?

States and localities create a group of government workers charged with that task.

They are called "police".

Catch up.

Sorry here, but you are the one who needs to "catch up". I've had a second cousin murdered. Stabbed to death in Detroit. The Police never found the killer. Experience tells me that they didn't bother to look too hard. My second Cousin was merely coming home from work and refused to give up his wallet.

My Nephew is a Detective in a large Southern City. When the words "shots fired" go out, unless its a fellow officer, the don't tend to get in a big hurry. Better to let the action get over with, than step in and take a chance on not going home that night.

Don't let television skew your views too much..for the most part, these are guys that just want to make it home every night. Very few officers EVER draw and use their weapons. What does THAT tell you?

Unfortunately, if you're looking for "protection", you are going to die waiting. As my Nephew is fond of saying, "It's the job of Police to ENFORCE laws, not PROTECT anyone". Keep in mind, if you will, that it is only the rich and the politicians, that have the "protection" YOU are looking for. Security details, heavily armed and private bodyguards - While they call for US to relinquish OUR protection. Think About It.

 

[saveliberty]

Michigan had six Constitutional amendments last election, all failed. People are very careful about changing a Constitution. As our government grows ever more socialist and totalitarian, the second amendment's value grows.

 

[Dick Tuck]

When faced with a problem, the left automatically chooses the solution that leads to less freedom.

Ironic, considering they call themselves "liberals".

Freedom is not having to worry about crazy motherfuckers, like yourself, who want America to be a culture of violence and firearms.

 

[saveliberty]

What a lie DT. You just want a nation of sheep living under rules created by liberals.