Why won't the Democratic Party just propose repealing the Second Amendment and be done with it?

[ClosedCaption]

^^Doesnt like States Rights

States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.

Republican Bloomberg huh

 

[BULLDOG]

Another example of the straw man built by the right wing. If liberals were anything like the right wing tries to describe us, I would be a republican too. It's obvious that the only way the right can hang on to their base and keep the teabaggers stirred up is to convince them that liberals want all kinds of made up horrible things. The desire to repeal the 2nd is just another of those made up claims.

Kudos to you. It's amazing how cons believe anyone other than a far right wing con is a Marxist or Communist wanting for the old Soviet Union as the best form of government. It's amazing the stupid shit that cons actually believe.

Not surprising to me. After all, the right has spent a lot of time enacting their propaganda strategy. It started with the so called silent majority, which was nothing more than a few TV preachers, and morphed into the so called religious right. Several other steps along the way, but it eventually led to right wing supporters who are nothing more than trained seals.

 

[emilynghiem]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because [YOU don't see a lot of citizens laying their life on the line] to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life, doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

 

[BULLDOG]

libs just make it hard to own certain guns or ammo Bulldog . Regulate magazines , ban some ammunition here and there . Regulate the AR15 as the libs have done in California and a few other state . Also look at new York that 'Marty' mentions . Look at his reasoning that I agree with . Regulate , regulate , regulate and that neuters the 2nd amendment RIGHT to nothing resembling what the 2nd is supposed to be . 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting .

Gun nuts have nothing to do with sanity.

 

[pismoe]

I mean , libs are fine with a double barrel 12 gauge or a pump shotgun limited to 3 rounds as in England . Same thing with low capacity hunting rifles in an assortment of different calibers and the more varied the caliber , well that's even better . Most hunting rifles are 3 to 5 shot magazines in all sorts of calibers and libs , dems think that they are fine . Libs just don't like so called weapons of war in anyones hands outside their lib , dem controlled government employees in military and law enforcement . Government leaders like Feinstein can also have guns , see Feinstein who had a concealed carry license in the disarmed city of 'san fran' California .

 

[martybegan]

^^Doesnt like States Rights

States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.

Republican Bloomberg huh

he was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an independent.

 

[ClosedCaption]

^^Doesnt like States Rights

States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.

Republican Bloomberg huh

he was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an independent.

He ran as a republican and was voted for as a republican. Dont run from it

 

[emilynghiem]

It would cause an armed Insurrection.

Conservatives should introduce an amendment to repeal the 14th.

Roadrunner
No, they should demand that the Fourteenth be applied and enforced equally,
to show the ACA mandates are unconstitutional by discriminating on the basis of CREED,
favoring and exempting believers in health care rights over citizens who believe in states' rights punished with taxes
that other citizens are exempted from based on regulations (including religious rules) mandated by government.

 

[BULLDOG]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

 

[emilynghiem]

Another example of the straw man built by the right wing. If liberals were anything like the right wing tries to describe us, I would be a republican too. It's obvious that the only way the right can hang on to their base and keep the teabaggers stirred up is to convince them that liberals want all kinds of made up horrible things. The desire to repeal the 2nd is just another of those made up claims.

Kudos to you. It's amazing how cons believe anyone other than a far right wing con is a Marxist or Communist wanting for the old Soviet Union as the best form of government. It's amazing the stupid shit that cons actually believe.

auditor0007
It didn't help much that Obama bypassed states' rights and declared ACA mandates to be the "law of the land" over the US Constitution. If arguments against Bush were based on overreaching with executive authority, well, this isn't much better.

 

[Roadrunner]

It would cause an armed Insurrection.

Conservatives should introduce an amendment to repeal the 14th.

Roadrunner
No, they should demand that the Fourteenth be applied and enforced equally,
to show the ACA mandates are unconstitutional by discriminating on the basis of CREED,
favoring and exempting believers in health care rights over citizens who believe in states' rights punished with taxes
that other citizens are exempted from based on regulations (including religious rules) mandated by government.

14th is just too screwed up.

Enforce the bill of rights, and 13th 14th and 15th aren't even needed, but that is another story.

NOBODY ever, at the time, meant the 14th to allow an illegal to squat an anchor baby on this side of the border, and earn a lifetime of benefits for doing it.

 

[pismoe]

Bloomberg , not a big deal if he was a rino , lots of rinos in the rino repub party 'C.C.'.

 

[martybegan]

^^Doesnt like States Rights

States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.

Republican Bloomberg huh

he was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an independent.

He ran as a republican and was voted for as a republican. Dont run from it

No running required. He ran as a republican because he wasn't part of the NYC democratic Machine. He's also pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay marriage, and pretty much a democrat on all other social issues except police issues. The only other difference is he was mildly fiscally conservative.

 

[emilynghiem]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.

There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.

 

[BULLDOG]

We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.

"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio

The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.

Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.

One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.

The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.

I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.

P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.

That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.

You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.

There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.

Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.

There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.

So you think that doing something nice should automatically designate you as a self appointed cop? It doesn't work that way. How do you propose addressing criminals and mentally ill owning guns, if nobody knows when they buy a gun? Licensed gun dealers already do a background check, but individuals aren't required to do that.Yes, I know there will always be other ways for a crook to buy a gun, but universal background checks would severely limit the available guns to the crooks and mentally ill. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[pismoe]

thing with the mentally ill , who gets to decide the definition of mentally ill . I'm hearing that lots of returning service men are being denied guns because they have PTSD 'Bulldog' .

 

[chikenwing]

The OP: Dems want to take your guns!! Sure they havent said it, done it, proposed it or anything like that but that doesnt mean nuffin!

You live under a rock?,many people form the left have and will say just what you deny.
Convenient memory fade?

 

[pismoe]

here you go Bulldog , just a little info on vets being denied guns because they have PTSD or some brain injury . --- Combat Veterans With PTSD or TBI Losing The Right to Bear Arms - Freedom Outpost ---

 

[ClosedCaption]

The OP: Dems want to take your guns!! Sure they havent said it, done it, proposed it or anything like that but that doesnt mean nuffin!

You live under a rock?,many people form the left have and will say just what you deny.
Convenient memory fade?

Yeah but we're talking about people with actual power and not random twitter users

 

[pismoe]

and CRIMINALS , aren't they supposed to be in jail ?? If they aren't in jail how do you know that they are criminals Bulldog ??