Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment?

[saveliberty]

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

I tried to help Roo, I really did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

The only reason the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership is because the the Supreme Court interpreted it that way. And not that long ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

 

[Antares]

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

 

[saveliberty]

The only reason the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership is because the the Supreme Court interpreted it that way. And not that long ago.

No, it was understood to mean that all along. It took ignorant people like you this long to think it means anything different. Then you lost.

 

[Antares]

How did you get out of High School?

Maybe they had already eliminated the Constitutional Studies requirement.

At any rate...you really should do some research.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

The only reason the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership is because the the Supreme Court interpreted it that way. And not that long ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

The joke's on you because I fully support the 2nd amendment and it's on record here on this forum somewhere from long ago.

What I don't support are ignorant ***** like you who can't get ANYTHING right.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why do you people seem to want to blame "the left" for all this hemming and hawing about Gun Control?

Personally, I think we should have MORE guns, not less. I also happen to feel, however, that gun licenses need to be more like car licenses, and that the sale of weapons should have some reasonable qualifications, like background checks.

What are all you people worried about as far as background checks go anyway? Is it really such a problem to wait a few days to get your gun if it means more children don't DIE?

Seriously, WTF?

Also, a thumb-print locking and RFID identification program on all weapons might be useful too.

With an RFID program, you could have devices that detect when weapons are present within a certain radius.

And all that being said, I think that, with qualifications like these in place, we should all be allowed to own and carry weapons, as per the 2nd amendment.

 

[Katzndogz]

It was just a few months ago that the left wanted to repeal the First Amendment if free speech hut feelings. Then there is the inconvenient prohibition on the government being able to confiscate private property to achieve fairness.

The left despises the Bill of Rights most of all. That's what they really want.

 

[saveliberty]

If you have a right, there are some attached responsibilities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was just a few months ago that the left wanted to repeal the First Amendment if free speech hut feelings. Then there is the inconvenient prohibition on the government being able to confiscate private property to achieve fairness.

The left despises the Bill of Rights most of all. That's what they really want.

I really don't think the poster who said today that Scott Roeder was an American hero for murdering an innocent person should be pontificating about the Bill of Rights.

 

[Antares]

You've been ***** slapped from the start of this conversation, you've alseo stated that the Constitution as written is irrelevant......and now you want it both ways.

You are out of your league kid.

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

The joke's on you because I fully support the 2nd amendment and it's on record here on this forum somewhere from long ago.

What I don't support are ignorant ***** like you who can't get ANYTHING right.

 

[BlindBoo]

No a convention is not require. It could be used but it is not required to amend the Consitution.

 

[daveman]

That has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the principle. Of states rights. Why do guys like you selectively invoke the principle of states rights based on whether or not it suits your agenda?

Why, in PRINCIPLE, shouldn't a specific state be able to ban private ownership of handguns, if that is what the People of that state wanted,

much in the same way a specific state might want to ban all abortion?

btw, a state cannot now ban all abortion because the right to an abortion EXISTS in constitutional law...

My goodness, you're not very bright, are you?

The 10th Amendment says you're full of crap.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.​

But by all means, continue flailing. It's amusing watching you believe you've scored a devastating blow.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

So, you fucked up -- and it's MY fault.

In principle, I believe RvW is not based on the Constitution...so why should I support it? To assuage your petulant whining?

Not happening, Zippy. Get used to it.

 

[daveman]

You are too chickenshit to answer my question, so I will accept your capitulation.

Really? You can't even admit that Obama -- a liberal -- is responsible for the PA's expansion.

And you call ME chickenshit.

I said nothing about the expansion, that was not the subject matter.

Of course you say nothing about the expansion asked for and approved by liberals. It blows your "liberals love liberty!!" nonsense out of the water.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roo can't read and understand the Constitution is the problem.

You extremist radicals endanger all of the mainstream society with your stupidity.

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

 

[daveman]

Au contraire, little one, you are not fooling anyone. You are a radical extremist, with no cred here.

What you think is immaterial.

My rep count says otherwise, boy. How's that little tantrum working out for you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roo is merely a daveman cartoon. Neither make any sense.

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

I tried to help Roo, I really did.

 

[Antares]

Poor little Jake, projection at its finest.

Roo can't read and understand the Constitution is the problem.

You extremist radicals endanger all of the mainstream society with your stupidity.

What difference does it make, you don't like the Constitution anyway kid.

There is nothing to distinguish. They are rights if constitutional law says they are rights.

 

[Avatar4321]

Either that or Congress passes an amendment that we all approve.