The Right To Bear Arms

[Avatar4321]

well congrats to all the liberals here.

The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution

In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.


thank you for your honesty

That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?

 

[Katzndogz]

The Second Amendment isn't obsolete. It's unnecessary. So is the First Amendment. Government should regulate speech for the public good. Prohibit religious exercise too. The Fourth Amendment has to go. Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly. While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair. A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.

The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country. John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

 

[boedicca]

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

Back in yon olden days, that there musket could be fired only about 14 times before it became to hot to hold.

I agree that the second amendment is outdated, antiquated and never intended to be the measurement we use it for today.

You really are galactically stupid.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

I know you and some of your friends like posting irrelevant pictures and pretending they actually mean something or make you smart, but you just make yourself look stupid doing it. It's wiser to remain silent and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The Second Amendment isn't obsolete. It's unnecessary. So is the First Amendment. Government should regulate speech for the public good. Prohibit religious exercise too. The Fourth Amendment has to go. Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly. While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair. A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.

The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country. John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

Nope. It's not. We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.

 

[Avatar4321]

You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.

Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.

But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.

 

[candycorn]

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

Yes. It happened around 1950

 

[Katzndogz]

The Second Amendment isn't obsolete. It's unnecessary. So is the First Amendment. Government should regulate speech for the public good. Prohibit religious exercise too. The Fourth Amendment has to go. Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly. While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair. A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.

The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country. John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

Nope. It's not. We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.

The militia of the time was every able bodied male. There was no standing militia.

Although today it is quite attractive to give legitimacy to the various militia groups.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

 

[chikenwing]

whats your point?

 

[Dick Tuck]

You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.

Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.

But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.

I respond to a lot of stupid shit being stated. You're second paragraph starts with an incomprehensible statement. I have no idea what you're trying to convey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well congrats to all the liberals here.

The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution

In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.


thank you for your honesty

That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

That is precisely what some people have said. One guy even stated that the constitution means whatever the government says it means. Just because you are not saying it does not mean it is not being said.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The Second Amendment isn't obsolete. It's unnecessary. So is the First Amendment. Government should regulate speech for the public good. Prohibit religious exercise too. The Fourth Amendment has to go. Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly. While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair. A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.

The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country. John Adams was correct. The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

Nope. It's not. We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.

The militia of the time was every able bodied male. There was no standing militia.

Although today it is quite attractive to give legitimacy to the various militia groups.

Only if you believe that scumbags like the KKK are well regulated.

 

[Lakhota]

Top Republican Strategist Says NRA Is Out Of Touch On Gun Control | ThinkProgress

Frank Luntz, GOP Pollster: The NRA Isn't Listening With Proposal For Armed Guards At Schools

 

[Lakhota]

Oh, but it will. Just a matter of time...

 

[Lakhota]

Israeli gun control regulations 'opposite of US'

By Ben Hartman

A gun lover’s dream or a stringently controlled police state that would make a National Rifle Association supporter’s blood boil? In recent days, following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 dead, including 20 children, Israel has been mentioned as a country awash in guns yet still free of such random massacres. Many have pointed out that the difference between the countries is not in the prevalence of guns, but the regulations that accompany them.

According to Yaakov Amit, the head of the Public Security Ministry’s Firearms Licensing Department, the difference between the gun laws in the US and Israel are as clear as night and day.

“There is an essential difference between the two. In America the right to bear arms is written in the law, here it’s the opposite... only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license.”

Amit said gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement, or those who live in settlements “where the state has an interest in them being armed.”

He added that former IDF officers above a certain rank can get a license.

Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.

Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.

The gun owner must retake his license exam and testing at the gun range every three years. As of January, Amit said, a new law will go into effect requiring gun owners to prove that they have a safe at home to keep their weapon in.

More: Israeli gun control regulations 'opposite of US' - The Jerusalem Post

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Only socialist fools like cass the idiot sunstein believe that. And only idiots believe cass sunstein.

 

[Antares]

Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.

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

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.

Second amendment obsolete?

Your fucking common sense is obsolete.