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

[daveman]

When faced with a problem, the left automatically chooses the solution that leads to less freedom.

Ironic, considering they call themselves "liberals".

Like the Patriot Act?

Yes, like the Patriot Act, which was continued and expanded by "liberals".


Heh. And you thought you had a point.

 

[daveman]

If conservatives were intellectually honest and consistent in their beliefs,

they would want the 2nd Amendment repealed so that the individual states (states rights)) could decide how to regulate guns,

as opposed to having the big evil central government trump that freedom of choice.

If you were intellectually honest...well, you wouldn't be you.

 

[saveliberty]

What a lie DT. You just want a nation of sheep living under rules created by liberals.

No, I don't want a nation of paranoid nuts deciding that any gun regulation is an affront to our civil liberties. I don't want a nation led by the crazies, like yourself.

I don't own a gun. I'm scary enough without one, when I choose.

 

[daveman]

we dont need to remove it.

the founders worded in such a way we can police guns in any way we need to

Again: SCOTUS trumps angry internet retards.

That's what I've said many a time in Roe v Wade discussions. The retards howl in protest.

Do you know the difference between RvW and the Second Amendment?

Hint: Only one of them is in the Constitution.

 

[daveman]

Just because most conservative solutions to problems are All or Nothing extremisms does not mean everyone is like that.

Conservative: Perhaps we should consider allowing teachers and other school officials to carry concealed.

Leftist: ZOMG! You want to arm 6-year-olds!! What's wrong with you?!



This conversation happened this weekend on USMB. The leftist in question was Dick Tuck.

 

[daveman]

No. We cant ban guns. Its impractical. There are too many, too easy to hide. The cops wouldnt follow that order, neither would the military.

Now...I do wonder what the Founders would have written if they had an epedimic of colonial schoolhouses being massacred with muskets and bayonets by fellow citizens. But they didn't, their society didnt do that, except through warfare when the Brits did it.

Mental health is an answer to start with.

Second, not a gun ban, but measures for gun security. This kid should never have been near guns. They werent his. He wasn't 21, so he couldnt leagally own a pistol anyway. And that rifle should've been in a safe, somewhere he couldnt get it.

once again demonstrating that 20,000 failed gun control laws do not work because at the end of the day, criminals do not follow the law anyhow.

No, really, the criminals will follow this one! Honest!

/gun grabber

 

[Londoner]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

If the Left wants to discuss laws surrounding semi-automatic machine guns or (say) the procedures for online permitting, the poor rightwing voter has been manipulated to believe that this means that the Left wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

There is a huge difference between wanting to tweak the existing laws and wanting to remove the right to own a gun. It's like saying that the seatbelt law is analogous to banning cars.

(The OP is probably either very young and/or lacks much formal education)

Obama has clearly made the political calculation not to touch gun laws. Yet the Rightwing voter thinks the opposite. This kind of mind-control was predictable when the Rightwing began creating its Think-Tank/Media bubble in the 70s. The goal was to convince Rightwing voters that all other media sources were liars. By doing this, the leadership trapped its voters in an information stream where they could agitate them with hysterical misinformation about Terrorists, Guns and Gays. It's a tragedy because most of the people who fall into this kind of trap are under-educated and slightly unstable. This is the kind of ticking time bomb that will go off if things get much worse. Circa Germany 1933. God Help Us - 1/2 the citizenry has left the Reality-Based Universe.

 

[daveman]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

Nope. We don't need that and we don't need one to outlaw abortions or same sex marriage. Each would create a greater divide in an already divided country. What we need are rational and pragmatic laws, regulations and policies and a Congress willing to compromise for the good of the entire country.

Let's see, it's already illegal to steal weapons and murder people.

You saying the laws against theft and murder aren't rational and pragmatic? And that criminals will start obeying laws that are rational and pragmatic?

 

[daveman]

...semi-automatic machine guns...

No such thing.

 

[jillian]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

why would you need a constitutional convention?'

what "leftists"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

why would you need a constitutional convention?'

what "leftists"?

Guess you missed the poll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No.

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not remove but modify.

Personally..I have no problem with people owning guns to protect their homes or businesses.

No citizen should be allowed to carry guns in the streets.

Yeah, the streets should belong to people who don't give a **** what they're "allowed" to do. Everyone else should be home, cowering behind their steel-core doors and six deadbolts.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

Nope. We don't need that and we don't need one to outlaw abortions or same sex marriage. Each would create a greater divide in an already divided country. What we need are rational and pragmatic laws, regulations and policies and a Congress willing to compromise for the good of the entire country.

Let's see, it's already illegal to steal weapons and murder people.

You saying the laws against theft and murder aren't rational and pragmatic? And that criminals will start obeying laws that are rational and pragmatic?

No moron, I did not 'say' or even write that. I said we need rational and pragmatic laws, regulations and policies - you're the moron who supports murder (Stand Your Ground Laws) which is as far from rational and pragmatic as I can imagine. I'm not suggesting one does not fight back and use reasonable force to protect themeselves, others or property, so don't go there. The common law already recognizes a self defense.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Personally..I have no problem with people owning guns to protect their homes or businesses.

No citizen should be allowed to carry guns in the streets.

All law abiding citizens that legally own their firearms should be allowed to carry them where ever the hell they want.

No "modifications" to the 2nd amendment needed.

The second amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership.

And it never has.

We've corrupted the original intent.

Do us a favor, Cookie, and toddle on up to the Supreme Court and tell them that. They seem to think you're full of shit, for some reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

can you own a rocketlauncher?

Do you know where there's one for sale?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No.

Hence the "criminal" thing.

So...you want law-abiding people to face armed criminals with no means of self-defense.

Why is this a good thing?

States and localities create a group of government workers charged with that task.

They are called "police".

Catch up.

Does YOUR city have enough cops for every single person on the street to be escorted by one? Mine has one cop for every 850 people or so. How long do you think it's going to take the cops to get there if you get mugged?

 

[bodecea]

Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment? This seems to be something you leftist are gunning for this morning.

I believe it's on the docket right behind the DOMA type amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a lie DT. You just want a nation of sheep living under rules created by liberals.

No, I don't want a nation of paranoid nuts deciding that any gun regulation is an affront to our civil liberties. I don't want a nation led by the crazies, like yourself.

What a coincidence. I don't want a nation of frightened, helpless sheep, giving up all their rights and freedoms to huddle in their fortress-like houses. I don't want a nation where lunatics like you are even listened to.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that what YOU want matters to anyone but you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not remove but modify.

Personally..I have no problem with people owning guns to protect their homes or businesses.

No citizen should be allowed to carry guns in the streets.

Yeah, the streets should belong to people who don't give a **** what they're "allowed" to do. Everyone else should be home, cowering behind their steel-core doors and six deadbolts.

The streets are generally safe, if one is prudent and uses common sense. Carrying a firearm makes some feel safe and chose to go where they shouldn't and stand their ground because they believe that are protected.

Cops are trained to carry guns, before allowed to carry on the streets they have read and undertood a use of force policy, have taken written psychological tests and been interviewed by a psychologist and taken more tests, and then by supervisors and/or a manager in the agency where they want to work. If they pass all of this and a background check they are then assigned to a field training officer for the first year on the streets.