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

[mellowmelvindav]

I understand the 2nd amendment was put into place to keep the government under control so that we would not be run over as the british government had, this is good. I have just gone thru some stats on the yr. 2011, which showed approx. 8600 deaths due to fire arms, they also claim 37000 deaths due to automobiles. Think its past time to outlaw vehicles as they also cause the majority of pollution and use up the majority of natural resources. Think about it. There is no mention of how many are mamed and crippled. So lets be real

 

[hazlnut]

Has anybody yet posted how abolishing the 2nd amendment will change their lives in a negative way?

OH, you won't be able to shoot as many bottles and cans.

Destroying our Constitution certainly won't improve lives, bub.

Hyperbole much?

No one is going to touch the 2nd Amendment. The point of the thread is to show you how irrelevant it is.

 

[hazlnut]

I understand the 2nd amendment was put into place to keep the government under control so that we would not be run over as the british government had, this is good. I have just gone thru some stats on the yr. 2011, which showed approx. 8600 deaths due to fire arms, they also claim 37000 deaths due to automobiles. Think its past time to outlaw vehicles as they also cause the majority of pollution and use up the majority of natural resources. Think about it. There is no mention of how many are mamed and crippled. So lets be real

Wow, comparing accidental death to premeditated homicide.

Your college Logical Arguments 101 professor must be proud!!

What's that? You never went to college...

 

[Sallow]

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believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed.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

There's no need to "abolish" it.

There is a need to reverse serveral really bad decisions in serveral court cases including Heller.

The 2nd Amendment is the most misread in the Constitution.

Which is part of the reason conservatives constantly chop it in half.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

There's no need to "abolish" it.

There is a need to reverse serveral really bad decisions in serveral court cases including Heller.

The 2nd Amendment is the most misread in the Constitution.

Which is part of the reason conservatives constantly chop it in half.

Great post.!!

 

[The Rabbi]

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

There's no need to "abolish" it.

There is a need to reverse serveral really bad decisions in serveral court cases including Heller.

The 2nd Amendment is the most misread in the Constitution.

Which is part of the reason conservatives constantly chop it in half.

Great post.!!

If you're drunk. Or stupid.
And you two might be both.

 

[SayMyName]

I don't know anyone that has talked about repealing it. Yet, it can be interpreted more clearly, at last, by a Supreme Court that in the next 4 years might very well have two more justices appointed by Obama as the aging conservatives retire.

Alas, as a longtime conservative, I tire of the Republican party that has hitched its ship to a fringe that has no real solutions to the violence in America except to advocate for even more guns. If that was the answer, with so many guns in this country, we would be the safest on the planet, and we aren't. We are one of the most violent.

My rights are not infringed at all by my registering and declaring my firearm, now that I retired from South Carolina, and take a new career in Massachusetts. I tire of hearing of people actually advocating for violence against the government with images of boogey-men that are not real in this debate on controlling access to firearms more closely. It simply separates more and more conservatives and gun enthusiasts away from a bitter fringe element that is appearing more and more like lunatics, pushing us to join on this issue with the other side to keep arms from the dangerous.

 

[hjmick]

May not abolish any rights, but it could put all the others at risk...

 

[The Rabbi]

May not abolish any rights, but it could put all the others at risk...

The 2A gives a specific right to individual citizens. If you abolish it, you abolish that right. Pretty simple. What right would be abolished by deleting any of the other amendments in the bill of rights? It's all the same thing.

 

[thanatos144]

You know whats sad? that the progressive idiots here actually think that no mater what the government wont harm them......Did none of you progressives read what your fascist socialist heroes like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler did?

 

[Mad Scientist]

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

Except for the fact that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights.

You're never getting our Guns.

 

[Katzndogz]

You know whats sad? that the progressive idiots here actually think that no mater what the government wont harm them......Did none of you progressives read what your fascist socialist heroes like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler did?

They believe that unlike the men you mentioned, obama is a benevolent dictator who loves everyone and has the best interests of the nation in mind. All obama wants is for the people to do what they are told. That's all. He's the Big Papa raising a bunch of ungrateful children.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

What on earth is your baisis for this totally illogical (and incorrect) statement?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

What on earth is your baisis for this totally illogical (and incorrect) statement?

US vs Miller
Heller vs DC.

From Miller:

n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

So looks like you need to bone up a little before spouting off.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

What on earth is your baisis for this totally illogical (and incorrect) statement?

US vs Miller
Heller vs DC.

From Miller:

n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

So looks like you need to bone up a little before spouting off.

No, no, no . . . your quote from Milller says, basically, since there is nothing to show that possession of a short barreled shotgun has any relaltionship to a well regulated militia, then there is no basis for holding that the Second Amendment guarantees the right (to citizens who are not part of the militia) to keep and bear such an instrument.

In other words, this court is interpreting the 2A as only allowing citizens to possess weapons that are reasonably related to the regulation of a militia and, since a short barreled shotgun is not related to the regulation of a militia, then citizens cannot legally possess one.

Your interpretation of all this is simply incorrect. You are twisting this around to argue (illogically) that since the 2A only applies to the regulation of a militia, then citizens (who are NOT part of the militia) should be allowed to bear the same type of arms as the militia itself. This makes no sense.

 

[George Costanza]

You know whats sad? that the progressive idiots here actually think that no mater what the government wont harm them......Did none of you progressives read what your fascist socialist heroes like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler did?

They believe that unlike the men you mentioned, obama is a benevolent dictator who loves everyone and has the best interests of the nation in mind. All obama wants is for the people to do what they are told. That's all. He's the Big Papa raising a bunch of ungrateful children.

Just think of it Katz . . . FOUR MORE YEARS of this. FOUR MORE YEARS.

Whatcha gonna do?

 

[The Rabbi]

What on earth is your baisis for this totally illogical (and incorrect) statement?

US vs Miller
Heller vs DC.

From Miller:

n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

So looks like you need to bone up a little before spouting off.

No, no, no . . . your quote from Milller says, basically, since there is nothing to show that possession of a short barreled shotgun has any relaltionship to a well regulated militia, then there is no basis for holding that the Second Amendment guarantees the right (to citizens who are not part of the militia) to keep and bear such an instrument.

In other words, this court is interpreting the 2A as only allowing citizens to possess weapons that are reasonably related to the regulation of a militia and, since a short barreled shotgun is not related to the regulation of a militia, then citizens cannot legally possess one.

Your interpretation of all this is simply incorrect. You are twisting this around to argue (illogically) that since the 2A only applies to the regulation of a militia, then citizens (who are NOT part of the militia) should be allowed to bear the same type of arms as the militia itself. This makes no sense.

If the short barrel shotgun is not protected because it is not suitable for militia use then logically the guns that are protected are those suitable for militia use.
Which guns are suitable for militia use?

And it isn't that citizens cannot possess a short barrel shotgun. It is that they have no right to. Plenty of people have short barrel shotguns, legally.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know whats sad? that the progressive idiots here actually think that no mater what the government wont harm them......Did none of you progressives read what your fascist socialist heroes like Stalin, Mao, Castro and Hitler did?

They believe that unlike the men you mentioned, obama is a benevolent dictator who loves everyone and has the best interests of the nation in mind. All obama wants is for the people to do what they are told. That's all. He's the Big Papa raising a bunch of ungrateful children.

Just think of it Katz . . . FOUR MORE YEARS of this. FOUR MORE YEARS.

Whatcha gonna do?

Impeachment.

 

[thanatos144]

They believe that unlike the men you mentioned, obama is a benevolent dictator who loves everyone and has the best interests of the nation in mind. All obama wants is for the people to do what they are told. That's all. He's the Big Papa raising a bunch of ungrateful children.

Just think of it Katz . . . FOUR MORE YEARS of this. FOUR MORE YEARS.

Whatcha gonna do?

Impeachment.

Isnt it amazing how they see Obama breaking the laws set forth in the bill of rights as no big deal? Yet even more amazing is that they dont understand why we dont trust their asses.

I saw Geraldo Rivera on Fox this morning saying he cant understand why people would think their government would harm them....Its fucking amazing how ignorant of history these putzes are.

 

[daveman]

Just think of it Katz . . . FOUR MORE YEARS of this. FOUR MORE YEARS.

Whatcha gonna do?

Impeachment.

Isnt it amazing how they see Obama breaking the laws set forth in the bill of rights as no big deal? Yet even more amazing is that they dont understand why we dont trust their asses.

I saw Geraldo Rivera on Fox this morning saying he cant understand why people would think their government would harm them....Its fucking amazing how ignorant of history these putzes are.