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

[martybegan]

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?

Actually in our army the standard issue weapon is a 3-burst M-16 rifle. The US military decided that full rock and roll was a waste of ammuntion, and 3 burst is adequate for a rifleman. Each section has a SAW gunner for suppresive fire.

The funny thing is gun grabbers are attacking me for being the very thing they are asking for. A "reasonable" gun ownership supporter. My line falls between auto and semi auto.

Plus, if the shit really hit the fan I would assume the "rebels" would have access to machine shops, and could modify the semi auto's to rock and roll if they so felt the need. It would be illegal, but at that point legality would be moot.

Most sustained fire weapons are crew supported, and have never fallen under the traditonal interpretation of an "arm". Rifles on the other hand, of any type of chambering, have always been considered arms.

 

[g5000]

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believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed.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.

If there was no Second Amendment, dipshits like you would be asking, "Show me in the Constitution where it says you are allowed to own an 'assault rifle'."

 

[Sallow]

The gun murder problem in America is predominantly a matter of black and hispanic men - a tiny percentage of who even can spell NRA.

These are your own. What are you Liberals going to do about it?

No it's not.

We have no fucking idea what the real numbers are..

The NRA and Republicans blocked the government from releasing the true numbers.

I am calling you out.

Black men, alone, just 6% of the population account for over HALF of gun murders all by themselves. And of course, as you like to remind us black men are almost exclusively Democrats.

What are Liberals going to do about YOUR gun murder problem?

You can call me out all you want.

Since about 2004 the government stopped counting gun deaths. That's thanks to conservatives and the NRA.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Using the construct of the gun lobby..the second amendment protects an indivduals right to own a thermal nuclear weapon.

And by their own construct..it would be a necessary thing to own..since in that construct citizens have the "right" to attack governments they don't like.

The NRA's construct of the second amendment and US case law has impacted our society in a terrible and horrific fashion.

The bloodbath will continue unabated until these people's construct is seen to be what it really is..bullshit.

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

 

[Sallow]

Patently false.

The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.

Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.

This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.

It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.

There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.

The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.

That' "check" has been completely obliterated.

local militias were to protect from Injuns as well

militia men were to supply their own

firelock
ammo
bayonet or other edged weapon

Actually, if you read the Federalist papers, Hamilton advocates for a federally controlled standing army because of Indian attacks.

 

[Missourian]

Using the construct of the gun lobby..the second amendment protects an indivduals right to own a thermal nuclear weapon.

And by their own construct..it would be a necessary thing to own..since in that construct citizens have the "right" to attack governments they don't like.

The NRA's construct of the second amendment and US case law has impacted our society in a terrible and horrific fashion.

The bloodbath will continue unabated until these people's construct is seen to be what it really is..bullshit.

Patently false.

The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into the Constitution.

Arms are arms...not canons, not howitzers, not F-18's...arms.

This "Thermonuclear bomb" hyperbole is foolishness.

It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.

There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.

The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.

That' "check" has been completely obliterated.

A history lesson proves this a false argument.

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[martybegan]

No it's not.

We have no fucking idea what the real numbers are..

The NRA and Republicans blocked the government from releasing the true numbers.

I am calling you out.

Black men, alone, just 6% of the population account for over HALF of gun murders all by themselves. And of course, as you like to remind us black men are almost exclusively Democrats.

What are Liberals going to do about YOUR gun murder problem?

You can call me out all you want.

Since about 2004 the government stopped counting gun deaths. That's thanks to conservatives and the NRA.

From the CDC website, you fucking liar.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Has firearm deaths broken down by suicde and homicide, with trending.

 

[SniperFire]

No it's not.

We have no fucking idea what the real numbers are..

The NRA and Republicans blocked the government from releasing the true numbers.

I am calling you out.

Black men, alone, just 6% of the population account for over HALF of gun murders all by themselves. And of course, as you like to remind us black men are almost exclusively Democrats.

What are Liberals going to do about YOUR gun murder problem?

You can call me out all you want.

Since about 2004 the government stopped counting gun deaths. That's thanks to conservatives and the NRA.

I did and will continue to do so.

Gun murder in America is largely a minority men issue.

What are Liberals doing to police your own?

 

[Sallow]

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?

Using the construct of the gun lobby..the second amendment protects an indivduals right to own a thermal nuclear weapon.

And by their own construct..it would be a necessary thing to own..since in that construct citizens have the "right" to attack governments they don't like.

The NRA's construct of the second amendment and US case law has impacted our society in a terrible and horrific fashion.

The bloodbath will continue unabated until these people's construct is seen to be what it really is..bullshit.

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Using the construct of the gun lobby..the second amendment protects an indivduals right to own a thermal nuclear weapon.

And by their own construct..it would be a necessary thing to own..since in that construct citizens have the "right" to attack governments they don't like.

The NRA's construct of the second amendment and US case law has impacted our society in a terrible and horrific fashion.

The bloodbath will continue unabated until these people's construct is seen to be what it really is..bullshit.

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

Yes, it does. It gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of self defense from ANY source of danger is self evident from that.

The PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[SniperFire]

Using the construct of the gun lobby..the second amendment protects an indivduals right to own a thermal nuclear weapon.

And by their own construct..it would be a necessary thing to own..since in that construct citizens have the "right" to attack governments they don't like.

The NRA's construct of the second amendment and US case law has impacted our society in a terrible and horrific fashion.

The bloodbath will continue unabated until these people's construct is seen to be what it really is..bullshit.

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't give gun rights at all.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and the second only points out why it shall not be INFRINGED.

 

[Meister]

There have been 375 homicide deaths in Detroit this year alone. Most from the use of guns and most black on black crimes. Why did it take some white children to get gunned down before it raised the ire of the democrats regarding the second amendment?
Racism?

 

[Sallow]

I am calling you out.

Black men, alone, just 6% of the population account for over HALF of gun murders all by themselves. And of course, as you like to remind us black men are almost exclusively Democrats.

What are Liberals going to do about YOUR gun murder problem?

You can call me out all you want.

Since about 2004 the government stopped counting gun deaths. That's thanks to conservatives and the NRA.

From the CDC website, you fucking liar.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Has firearm deaths broken down by suicde and homicide, with trending.

Yeah..I went through it quickly and couldn't find what you are talking about. Point to the page. I want to see where they got that data.

And..

Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC. - Slate Magazine

 

[Sallow]

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't give gun rights at all.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and the second only points out why it shall not be INFRINGED.

It also points out that the "right" is necessary for the defense of the state and that well regulated militias are involved.

You keep leaving that stuff out.

 

[SniperFire]

There have been 375 homicide deaths in Detroit this year alone. Most from the use of guns and most black on black crimes. Why did it take some white children to get gunned down before it raised the ire of the democrats regarding the second amendment?
Racism?

C'mon. There had to be a 'white hispanic' perp in there somewhere!

 

[Sallow]

The NRA supports the 1934 firearms act, so how would it desire Nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are artillery, and the NRA has never lobbied for artillery.

If reducto ad absurdum is all you have as a logical argument, I suggest you stop making an ass of youself.

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

Yes, it does. It gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of self defense from ANY source of danger is self evident from that.

The PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

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.

That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.

 

[martybegan]

You can call me out all you want.

Since about 2004 the government stopped counting gun deaths. That's thanks to conservatives and the NRA.

From the CDC website, you fucking liar.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

Has firearm deaths broken down by suicde and homicide, with trending.

Yeah..I went through it quickly and couldn't find what you are talking about. Point to the page. I want to see where they got that data.

And..

Gun violence research: NRA and Congress blocked gun-control studies at CDC. - Slate Magazine

Page 11, under injury related deaths.

And what is "gun control studies"??? You said the government stopped counting "gun deaths", and here is a document on a government website, showing gun deaths.

 

[squeeze berry]

It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.

There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those are included invasion and insurrection.

The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.

That' "check" has been completely obliterated.

local militias were to protect from Injuns as well

militia men were to supply their own

firelock
ammo
bayonet or other edged weapon

Actually, if you read the Federalist papers, Hamilton advocates for a federally controlled standing army because of Indian attacks.

the army could not be everywhere at once just the same as the contemporary local police force.

 

[SniperFire]

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't give gun rights at all.

The right to bear arms is inalienable, and the second only points out why it shall not be INFRINGED.

It also points out that the "right" is necessary for the defense of the state and that well regulated militias are involved.

You keep leaving that stuff out.

Wrong. It points out that infringment on the right shall not be tolerated for those reason, not that the right itself is necessary for militia.

Read the fucking thing.

 

[martybegan]

The entire point of the post, which you missed, is that the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own guns for self defense or overthrowing the government.

And the NRA isn't constantly citing the 1934 firearm's act..it's citing the second amendment.

Yes, it does. It gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of self defense from ANY source of danger is self evident from that.

The PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

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.

That's the whole amendment, Marty. There's nothing about hunting or self defense in it. And nothing in the whole constitution that eludes to that.

Its still says "people" "right" "keep and bear arms" and "not be infringed". After that it doesnt matter WHY you can have guns, it matters that the government cannot infringe on that right.

If you dont like it repeal the amendment, but we all know modern progressives are far to lazy to do that, preferring to let lawyers rape the consitution via the courts.