Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any rights.

hazlnut

Gold Member
Sep 18, 2012
12,387
1,923
290
Chicago
Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not abolish any rights.


Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.

Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.

A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not containthe preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.
 
Last edited:
You sure try hard to earn that *LEFT WING OPERATIVE PAY* don't ya... spamming the board with all your leftist garbage.
 
The Second Amendment will be repealed when the left succeeds in rewriting the entire Constitution.
 
The point is actually true.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and inalienable rights exist independent of them being delineated in the Constitution. That many Founders did not want to lay out a Bill of Rights for fear inalienable rights would be 'overlooked' is proof positive that God granted freedoms exist independently.

The 2nd assumes as much, and only points out that the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED upon.

Which is actually just a redundancy, but the Founders knew progressive fucks would soon be after our guns so they went to pains to be specific.
 
The 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.

But, the military assault rifle will now always in this country be associated with the most heartwrenching massacre in modern history. The commercialized glorification of such weapons will at least be more difficult.
 
You know, they're only one SCOTUS Judge away from deciding that the Second Amendment applies only to the US Army, and who know, given Roberts addled brain, they may be there already
 
The point is actually true.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and inalienable rights exist independent of them being delineated in the Constitution. That many Founders did not want to lay out a Bill of Rights for fear inalienable rights would be 'overlooked' is proof positive that God granted freedoms exist independently.

The 2nd assumes as much, and only points out that the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED upon.

Which is actually just a redundancy, but the Founders knew progressive fucks would soon be after our guns so they went to pains to be specific.

Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?
 
The 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.

But, the military assault rifle will now always in this country be associated with the most heartwrenching massacre in modern history. The commercialized glorification of such weapons will at least be more difficult.

Considering he had two other weapons on him (handguns) and the fact that it took police 10 MINUTES to arrive at the school, he could have used any of his weapons and achived the same terrible effect.

It is the media and the gun control people that fixate on the weapon. Firstly, because the figure they can ban SCARYGUNS quicker than handguns, and 2nd, because they would rathe blame an inanimate object as opposed to the asshole who actually committe the crime.
 
The point is actually true.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and inalienable rights exist independent of them being delineated in the Constitution. That many Founders did not want to lay out a Bill of Rights for fear inalienable rights would be 'overlooked' is proof positive that God granted freedoms exist independently.

The 2nd assumes as much, and only points out that the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED upon.

Which is actually just a redundancy, but the Founders knew progressive fucks would soon be after our guns so they went to pains to be specific.

Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?

Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.

Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.



I would LOL but it is sickening.
 
The point is actually true.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and inalienable rights exist independent of them being delineated in the Constitution. That many Founders did not want to lay out a Bill of Rights for fear inalienable rights would be 'overlooked' is proof positive that God granted freedoms exist independently.

The 2nd assumes as much, and only points out that the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED upon.

Which is actually just a redundancy, but the Founders knew progressive fucks would soon be after our guns so they went to pains to be specific.

Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?

Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.

Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.

That's nonsense.
First, full autos are already highly restricted. Second why are full autos any more lethal than semis? They aren't. They are less lethal. Third, I must be one of those unreasonable ones. We've had penalties for felons owning guns since 1968 at least and I haven't seen any lessening in felons with guns. Actually the opposite. Finally, if the 2A is about "militia" then it should be a right for any citizen to own and carry the same weapons the military issues to individual soldiers, i.e. select fire rifles, shotguns, and handguns.
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.

How many were killed in the school Rahm Emmanuel's children go to? They have armed guards.
 
Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?

Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.

Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.

That's nonsense.
First, full autos are already highly restricted. Second why are full autos any more lethal than semis? They aren't. They are less lethal. Third, I must be one of those unreasonable ones. We've had penalties for felons owning guns since 1968 at least and I haven't seen any lessening in felons with guns. Actually the opposite. Finally, if the 2A is about "militia" then it should be a right for any citizen to own and carry the same weapons the military issues to individual soldiers, i.e. select fire rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

I was refering to howtizer wanting people as morons. I respectfully disagree on full auto weapons, as to me they meet the designation of a crew serviced weapon, even if the modern ones can be carried by one person.
 
I think reasonable people can disagree on what reaches the threshold of a 'crew serviced weapon', but that reasonable people can also see this ability to deploy as a threshold between someone's 'right to bear arms' and the crossover into a 'right to maintain their own private army'.
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.

Maybe we can get one of these gun control zealots to explain how that can POSSIBLY happen when ALL THE GUNS ARE GONE... hey hazelbut... tell us why... :eusa_eh:
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.

Maybe we can get one of these gun control zealots to explain how that can POSSIBLY happen when ALL THE GUNS ARE GONE... hey hazelbut... tell us why... :eusa_eh:

So if guns were easier to get in Chicago, that would solve the problem?
 
The point is actually true.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and inalienable rights exist independent of them being delineated in the Constitution. That many Founders did not want to lay out a Bill of Rights for fear inalienable rights would be 'overlooked' is proof positive that God granted freedoms exist independently.

The 2nd assumes as much, and only points out that the inalienable right shall not be INFRINGED upon.

Which is actually just a redundancy, but the Founders knew progressive fucks would soon be after our guns so they went to pains to be specific.

Then why can't we have automatic weapons, with the same ease of acquisition and possession as a semi-automatic weapon?

Because most gun owners are not the unreasonable "I WANT A HOWITZER GWARRR!" morons that the gun control people make them out to be. Most can see the need for restrictions on full autos, as well as felons not having weapons, and permits for concealed carry of handguns in public areas.

Semi autos, however, meet the intent of the 2nd amendment from both a personal protection standpoint, and a preservation of liberties standpoint.

So the second amendment doesn't protect the right to own automatic weapons? How do you know it protects the right to own semi-automatic weapons?

The automatic rifle is the standard issue personal weapon of the military. If defending yourself against 'tyranny' of the government is a legitimate purpose of the 2nd amendment,

then why wouldn't it protect your right to arm yourself in a manner comparable to the army of the tyrant?
 
I was watching CNN just a while ago.. here are the stats I heard. Chicago is a gun free zone. TOTAL gun ban in CHICAGO.. KNow how many people died from GSW in this TOTALLY gun free zone? IN one year, this year, the year 2012 500 peoplewere shot to death. aka MURDERED with GUNS.

Maybe we can get one of these gun control zealots to explain how that can POSSIBLY happen when ALL THE GUNS ARE GONE... hey hazelbut... tell us why... :eusa_eh:

So if guns were easier to get in Chicago, that would solve the problem?

Don't know. But It's obvious that banning guns won't solve the problem.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top