The Right To Bear Arms

[ba1614]

More "fundamental change", well fuck them.

 

[tinydancer]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

You aren't even American

What's fun is to watch you morph depending the discussion. Now you are a gun lover.

OMG

 

[Lakhota]

Anyone here belong to a militia? Know anyone who belongs to a militia? I don't...

 

[Avatar4321]

Has human nature changed?

Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?

Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?

If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.

When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.

 

[Lakhota]

Has human nature changed?

Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?

Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?

If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.

When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.

Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP. Do you belong to a militia? Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?

 

[Avatar4321]

Has human nature changed?

Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?

Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?

If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.

When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.

Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP. Do you belong to a militia? Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?

Just because you can't understand english, doesn't mean I didn't address the OP.

We still have a right and obligation to defend ourselves and our communities from: Hostiles, both foreign and domestic.

Nothing has changed. Human nature is still the same. When everyone stops trying to murder innocent people, there are no threats to us, and when politicians completely respect our liberties, there may be a time that we no longer need a second amendment. Until then, it's not obsolete in the least.

Just because you want to cede your sovereignty to a government bureaucrat, doesn't mean anyone else does or needs to.

 

[Sarah G]

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.

How profoundly motherfucking stupid.

 

[Missourian]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

No.

/thread

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"assault weapons" are like "hate speech".....

liberals want both Amendments 1 & 2 obsolete....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

Maybe - so get the two-thirds you need and repeal it. It's been done before.

But DO NOT try to pretend it doesn't say what it says and repeal it by court order.

I would favor strict gun control. But I wouldn't favor an end run around the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Is there anything else in the Constitution that these people think is ambiguous? Is it possible they don't like the idea that laws actually have to follow the constitution in the first place? After all, it was written 200 years ago.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

Most of us tend to think that the right to self defense is more important than anything else, can you explain why you think it is more important that people die than live?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

We aren't going back to bows and arrows. Sorry.

Those are next.

 

[Some Guy]

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited — never have been and never will be – Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star

Break that up into two parts.

1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For #1, in my opinion, "security of a free state" means the security of the governed from the government, not "security" from foreign threats. Look at history for an abundance of examples of the populace being smashed under the foot of an oppressive government.

If liberals want to limit gun ownership and use, they'd best avoid trying to discredit the Constitution in order to do so. Focus on the "well regulated militia" part instead.

 

[mudwhistle]

The courts will say no.

The courts?

So now the courts draft legislation and can change the constitution at will?


I think you'd better go back and re-read the constitution and focus on the powers of various branches of government.

The constitution is designed to prevent government from trouncing all over the rights of the citizens.

Seems the left constantly is attempting to do this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible. Both are subject to vast interpretation.

Tell me something, how is "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" subject to interpretation? Is there something ambiguous about those words? Are you aware that it is idiots that insist that everything is open to interpretation that make things complicated, not those who insist the words mean exactly what they say? If you din't think you were smarter than someone else simply because you were born a few years later than them we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

 

[Contumacious]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

So our right to bear arms depends on the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution? I thought it was an unalienable right because we are free people.

" The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens ....,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."


UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL., 92 U.S. 542 (U.S. 10/01/1875)


Ooops, you are wrong again.

.

 

[boedicca]

This thread makes Baby Thomas Jefferson cry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

Obama signs NDAA and you voted for this moron, no?

Not only did he vote for him, he insists that you are a racist for not accepting that he is god incarnate.