Repealing the second amendment...

[Little-Acorn]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
  
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

BTW, even if the 2nd amendment gets repealed (somebody check Hell, if it's frozen then you know the 2nd is repealed)....

...then the Federal government STILL has no Constitutional authority to regulate, restrict, or ban guns.

You have to then pass a new amendment (or replace the text of the 2nd with new text) saying that Congress can now restrict or take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that one, too.

 

[debbiedowner]

10,000 gun homicides each year. And you worry and fret non-stop about Muslims!

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

I have linked to that site many times to show you tards that lightning kills more Americans than Muslims do.

So...what's your plan to reduce the 10,000 gun homicides each year?

Shit happens, Most of those are gangbangers in urban areas comes with the territory

Plan A: Ban guns.

Plan B: Shit happens.

So much for superior ideas!

Moved to the red areas and you have basically no chance of encountering any firearm violence

You're living in fucking la la land. You've been asked what your solutions are and you quote some fucked up site that we have more serious problems I suggest you read down that list slowly and you'll see they're doubling up. Jesus Christ no one is taking your guns they never have and never will.

 

[debbiedowner]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

The gun death toll goes up and up, and those that are apposed to guns aren't on a map, but like the fifth estate, we that don't register on your radar will make heads roll.

A firearm registry is nothing more/less than firearm confiscation

You live in your paranoid little head.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
  
• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

BTW, even if the 2nd amendment gets repealed (somebody check Hell, if it's frozen then you know the 2nd is repealed)....

...then the Federal government STILL has no Constitutional authority to regulate, restrict, or ban guns.

You have to then pass a new amendment (or replace the text of the 2nd with new text) saying that Congress can now restrict or take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Good luck with that one, too.

then they have to try and enforce it

good luck with that bloody mess

 

[Rustic]

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

I have linked to that site many times to show you tards that lightning kills more Americans than Muslims do.

So...what's your plan to reduce the 10,000 gun homicides each year?

Shit happens, Most of those are gangbangers in urban areas comes with the territory

Plan A: Ban guns.

Plan B: Shit happens.

So much for superior ideas!

Moved to the red areas and you have basically no chance of encountering any firearm violence

You're living in fucking la la land. You've been asked what your solutions are and you quote some fucked up site that we have more serious problems I suggest you read down that list slowly and you'll see they're doubling up. Jesus Christ no one is taking your guns they never have and never will.

Never, say never...

 

[Rustic]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

The gun death toll goes up and up, and those that are apposed to guns aren't on a map, but like the fifth estate, we that don't register on your radar will make heads roll.

A firearm registry is nothing more/less than firearm confiscation

You live in your paranoid little head.

Only fools trust the federal government to do the right thing...

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s the debate isn’t it? Many agree with you and many disagree

Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country… we have much bigger fish to fry.
2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Do you have trouble walking and chewing gum?

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

 

[JGalt]

I'd just settle for a repeal of both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 . Machine guns and silencers are just too damned expensive these days, thanks to the first one. And I miss having the Post Office deliver inexpensive firearms to me door like they did before the second one.

I bought two WW2 German Mausers in 1967 for $15 bucks apiece. The Post Office charged me $4 apiece for shipping.

Yup..the good ole days..I know Oswald was most appreciative of his mail order rifle.

The Carcano he bought was a piece of crap. For the same price he could have had the scoped British Enfield .303 which is far better than 6.5mm. For twice the price he could have had the scoped Enfield P-17 in 30-06. I have each one of those and the British .303 would have been my choice because of the smoother bolt action and 10-round magazine capacity. The 30-06 P-1917 is more of a distance shooter and with a decent scope, could do a 500 yard head shot. But Oswald was only shooting 80 yards, which is why he bought the POS Carcano.

I've stood on the sidewalk right underneath the window where he fired the shots. Dealey Plaza is really a lot smaller than it looks on television. An 88 yard head shot to a passenger in a moving vehicle isn't really difficult for an ex-Marine who had some training with a bolt-action rifle.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i am still waiting for the repeal of the three stooges. Maxine/Jackson Lee/Warren

 

[2aguy]

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

I have linked to that site many times to show you tards that lightning kills more Americans than Muslims do.

So...what's your plan to reduce the 10,000 gun homicides each year?

Shit happens, Most of those are gangbangers in urban areas comes with the territory

Plan A: Ban guns.

Plan B: Shit happens.

So much for superior ideas!

Moved to the red areas and you have basically no chance of encountering any firearm violence

You're living in fucking la la land. You've been asked what your solutions are and you quote some fucked up site that we have more serious problems I suggest you read down that list slowly and you'll see they're doubling up. Jesus Christ no one is taking your guns they never have and never will.

You mean except for the attempt by Hawaii....and New York...and the 4th circuit court of appeals in Massachusetts....you should really do some research before you post, numb nuts....

 

[2aguy]

Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country… we have much bigger fish to fry.
2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Do you have trouble walking and chewing gum?

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

 

[jillian]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

Lol. No one is repealing the 2nd. So what are you going on about?

 

[2aguy]

It seems the drumbeat is on again... well good luck. Lol

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

• Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
• Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or

• Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.

Lol. No one is repealing the 2nd. So what are you going on about?

And you might want to try adding the link to your post

You mean except for Hawaii....New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts....as well as the 9th and 4th circuit courts of appeals.....you mean except for them...right?

 

[Rustic]

Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country… we have much bigger fish to fry.
2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Do you have trouble walking and chewing gum?

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

 

[Slade3200]

Do you have trouble walking and chewing gum?

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

 

[Slade3200]

Do you have trouble walking and chewing gum?

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

 

[2aguy]

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

Nothing you guys propose achieves this. If you want to do what you say you want to do...stop punishing normal gun owners....and pass sentencing laws for gun criminals, actual gun criminals, who use guns for rape, robbery and murder....30-life for any crime where a gun is used....30-life if you are a prohibited criminal and are caught with a gun....this is how Japan stopped their Yakuza from shooting each other.....we need to do this...

Anything else is simply baby step gun confiscation....

 

[2aguy]

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

The way you achieve what you want....long prison sentences for gun criminals...anything else is just stupid....

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison.

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

 

[Rustic]

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

You mean except for actual research on the topic of gun control and reducing violence?

Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study.

In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

And how about Britain...they banned and confiscated guns....and their gun crime rate has only gone up.....27% across the whole country last year, and up 42% in London alone, and their violent crime rate is higher than ours and going up....

How do you explain that since they banned guns.....? Kind of makes your point kinda silly....

No I think my point makes perfect sense. Criminals and crimes are always going to exist. Question is do we want to make it harder for them to access firepower or not? I’d rather a criminal have a pistol over a machine gun. I’d rather a criminal have a knife over a pistol. I’d rather a criminal have to seek out these weapons on the black market instead of be able to easily purchase at a store. #commonsense

Criminals don’t purchase firearms, they steal.

 

[Rustic]

Shit happens, more fucked up laws will increase violence

Well that’s a pretty lame argument. I guess it all depends on the law. But of course there’s the fact that some laws could decrease violence which would be the point

Actually more frivolous laws only hurt law abiding people... Criminal control not gun control

Crime control is fine but doesn’t have anything to with the question if gun control reduces violence. I’d say our gun laws, for the most part, reduces access and takes guns and fire power out of more criminal hands than law abiding citizens. If that’s the case then it would likely be a factor in reducing violence. I don’t think you are making a strong argument at all

Enforce current laws, new frivolous laws will not save a single soul....

At one point the current laws were the “new frivolous laws” and you were probably saying the same bullshit you are saying now. So now you want to enforce them?

The current laws are not being enforced, criminal control not gun control