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

[George Costanza]

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.

This, coming from a conservative? Pinch me to make sure I'm awake . . .

First off, why don't you point out the Bill of Rights violations which you think President Obama is commiting. Can't wait to hear this one. Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Glad to see you are such a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. Give me your address, so I can send you a donation envelope for donation to the ACLU. I'm sure you are a strong supporter of them, right?

 

[thanatos144]

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.

This, coming from a conservative? Pinch me to make sure I'm awake . . .

First off, why don't you point out the Bill of Rights violations which you think President Obama is commiting. Can't wait to hear this one. Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Glad to see you are such a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. Give me your address, so I can send you a donation envelope for donation to the ACLU. I'm sure you are a strong supporter of them, right?

every executive order he ever gave is a violation of the bill of rights. By the way I don't give money to communist organizations and the aclu is that.

 

[daveman]

Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Oh, you mean the trampling that Obama continued and expanded?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

 

[George Costanza]

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.

This, coming from a conservative? Pinch me to make sure I'm awake . . .

First off, why don't you point out the Bill of Rights violations which you think President Obama is commiting. Can't wait to hear this one. Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Glad to see you are such a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. Give me your address, so I can send you a donation envelope for donation to the ACLU. I'm sure you are a strong supporter of them, right?

every executive order he ever gave is a violation of the bill of rights. By the way I don't give money to communist organizations and the aclu is that.

But most of what the ACLU does is fight to protect the Bill of Rights - you know, make sure that the government is not overstepping its bounds.

You don't support something like that? Why not?

 

[George Costanza]

Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Oh, you mean the trampling that Obama continued and expanded?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

If that were the case, you would have a point. But it isn't, and therefore you don't.

Of course, this is a highly subjective topic, so I don't expect our discussion to go much futher. Let's just say that I saw much more "trampling" going on with Bush than I do with Obama. It's one thing for a genuine violation of the Bill of Rights to take place. It's quite another for a perceived violation to occur. I submit that the "violations" to which the Right is referring these days in Obama's case are much more pereceived than actual.

 

[thanatos144]

This, coming from a conservative? Pinch me to make sure I'm awake . . .

First off, why don't you point out the Bill of Rights violations which you think President Obama is commiting. Can't wait to hear this one. Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Glad to see you are such a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. Give me your address, so I can send you a donation envelope for donation to the ACLU. I'm sure you are a strong supporter of them, right?

every executive order he ever gave is a violation of the bill of rights. By the way I don't give money to communist organizations and the aclu is that.

But most of what the ACLU does is fight to protect the Bill of Rights - you know, make sure that the government is not overstepping its bounds.

You don't support something like that? Why not?

No it doesnt. It fights against the bill of rights. You are just to stupid to see it. Just cause a communist says something is constitutional doesnt means it is....Take separation of church and state....Where is that in the constitution again????? That is the main thing the commie ACLU fights for the others is gun bans and squashing certain speech so evidence shows that no they don't support the bill of rights. Yet we all do know you wont let the truth stand in your way from trying to act smart.

 

[thanatos144]

Progressives like to lie and say the bill of rights is complex... It isnt and they know they are wrong. Fascists always try to place blame elsewhere

 

[tjvh]

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 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.

Total and complete BULLSHIT. Try looking at the CDC site... it's all there in black and white... And yes, it's a .gov website: FASTSTATS - Homicide

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Total and complete BULLSHIT. Try looking at the CDC site... it's all there in black and white... And yes, it's a .gov website: FASTSTATS - Homicide

Swallow is factually challenged. Expect him to melt away from this discussion like the dunce he is.

 

[jillian]

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

infowars? really?

the repeal of any amendment (other than in the case of prohibition, (the only amendment to curtail rights, rather than expand them) would have an effect on what government is required to enforce.

as for the purported 'preamble', if it were ratified, it would have been included in the amendment.

 

[daveman]

Then, let's go back and take a look at the gross excesses of George W. Bush as he trampled all over the Bill of Rights in the name of "the war on terror."

Oh, you mean the trampling that Obama continued and expanded?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

If that were the case, you would have a point. But it isn't, and therefore you don't.

Of course, this is a highly subjective topic, so I don't expect our discussion to go much futher. Let's just say that I saw much more "trampling" going on with Bush than I do with Obama. It's one thing for a genuine violation of the Bill of Rights to take place. It's quite another for a perceived violation to occur. I submit that the "violations" to which the Right is referring these days in Obama's case are much more pereceived than actual.

Oh, right, I forgot: Obama Can Do No Wrong, Copyright ©2008 - End of Time, Obama Bootlickers, Inc.

Nevertheless, from sources you can't possibly claim are GOP mouthpieces:

ACLU Report: Obama administration expands domestic spying - World Socialist Web Site

The Raw Story | Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | Alternet

Your unwillingness to perceive something does not mean it's not there.

 

[George Costanza]

Oh, you mean the trampling that Obama continued and expanded?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!!

If that were the case, you would have a point. But it isn't, and therefore you don't.

Of course, this is a highly subjective topic, so I don't expect our discussion to go much futher. Let's just say that I saw much more "trampling" going on with Bush than I do with Obama. It's one thing for a genuine violation of the Bill of Rights to take place. It's quite another for a perceived violation to occur. I submit that the "violations" to which the Right is referring these days in Obama's case are much more pereceived than actual.

Oh, right, I forgot: Obama Can Do No Wrong, Copyright ©2008 - End of Time, Obama Bootlickers, Inc.

Nevertheless, from sources you can't possibly claim are GOP mouthpieces:

ACLU Report: Obama administration expands domestic spying - World Socialist Web Site

The Raw Story | Obama Administration quietly expands Bush's legal defense of wiretapping program

How Obama Became a Civil Libertarian's Nightmare | Alternet

Your unwillingness to perceive something does not mean it's not there.

Just can't resist indulging in the personal stuff, can you?

Look - I am not the greatest Obama fan on the left. Far from it. He has done, and is doing. quite a few things I do not at all agree with. His position on gun control is not one of them. I don't see his gun control proposal as violative of anything at all. He isn't taking guns away from hunters or target shooters or sportsmen or even folks who want to keep a gun in their house for protection. All he is trying to regulate is fucking ASSAULT WEAPONS, for Christ's sake.

 

[George Costanza]

every executive order he ever gave is a violation of the bill of rights. By the way I don't give money to communist organizations and the aclu is that.

But most of what the ACLU does is fight to protect the Bill of Rights - you know, make sure that the government is not overstepping its bounds.

You don't support something like that? Why not?

No it doesnt. It fights against the bill of rights. You are just to stupid to see it. Just cause a communist says something is constitutional doesnt means it is....Take separation of church and state....Where is that in the constitution again????? That is the main thing the commie ACLU fights for the others is gun bans and squashing certain speech so evidence shows that no they don't support the bill of rights. Yet we all do know you wont let the truth stand in your way from trying to act smart.

I am just "to" stupid to see it? Take a hike, moron.

 

[thanatos144]

But most of what the ACLU does is fight to protect the Bill of Rights - you know, make sure that the government is not overstepping its bounds.

You don't support something like that? Why not?

No it doesnt. It fights against the bill of rights. You are just to stupid to see it. Just cause a communist says something is constitutional doesnt means it is....Take separation of church and state....Where is that in the constitution again????? That is the main thing the commie ACLU fights for the others is gun bans and squashing certain speech so evidence shows that no they don't support the bill of rights. Yet we all do know you wont let the truth stand in your way from trying to act smart.

I am just "to" stupid to see it? Take a hike, moron.

Aww did I hurt the your feelings fascist?

 

[George Costanza]

No it doesnt. It fights against the bill of rights. You are just to stupid to see it. Just cause a communist says something is constitutional doesnt means it is....Take separation of church and state....Where is that in the constitution again????? That is the main thing the commie ACLU fights for the others is gun bans and squashing certain speech so evidence shows that no they don't support the bill of rights. Yet we all do know you wont let the truth stand in your way from trying to act smart.

I am just "to" stupid to see it? Take a hike, moron.

Aww did I hurt the your feelings fascist?

Not at all - just somewhat amused at being called "stuipd" by someone who is apparently unable to spell properly.

Look - one man's violation of the Bill of Rights is another man's proper course of action. In other words, it is largely a subjective call. Example: I didn't hear too many (note spelling of "too" in this context) conservatives claiming that Bush's warrantless wire tapping or holding detainees for years without trial, were violations of the Bill of Rights. I believe that both of these were clear violations of the Bill of Rights because trying to justify them on the basis of the bogus "war on terror" was simply b.s.

The ACLU fought both of these programs vigorously. I view them as fighting against Bill of Rights violations. You probably didn't.

It is what is it.

 

[MaryL]

I agree. Who's it going to hurt? All those poor poor NRA members and gun manufacturers. I can live with that. All the shooting victims and the majority of the US populace can do quite nicely without firearms, thanks for asking. That, as Shakespeare said, is the rub.

 

[George Costanza]

I agree. Who's it going to hurt? All those poor poor NRA members and gun manufacturers. I can live with that. All the shooting victims and the majority of the US populace can do quite nicely without firearms, thanks for asking. That, as Shakespeare said, is the rub.

But, as I understand it, no one is proposing to take "firearms" away from anyone. All that is sought to be banned is big-ass, kill-hundreds-in-minutes, ASSAULT WEAPONS. As I see it, there is NO justification for assault weapons at all. They are not used for hunting or target shooting. Yes, they could be used for self protection, but there are plenty of less dangerous on a mass level weapons that can fill that bill. The ONLY purpose of assault weapons is to KILL OTHER PEOPLE IN HUGE NUMBERS IN A VERY SHORT TIME.

The disingenuousness of the NRA is hugely evident these days.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

From the link:

This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

So what you are telling me is that absent the 2nd Amendment, barack obama would not attempt to ban civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles and virtually all pistols? How long has it been since I negged your silly ass?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Fakse.
The Newtown shooting did not involve a military assault rifle.
Anyone that associates such a rifle with the Newtown shooting does so out of abject ignorance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Aside from the fact that your posts in no waymeaningfully addresses what he said...
Depending on where you are, it may be easier to get an automatic weapon than a semi-auto.