Man Up Democrats: Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment

[The2ndAmendment]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree.
Try to repeal the 2nd -- you -know- you want to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

More than once in a while, they lose an election.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

More than once in a while, they lose an election.

And then the B-Team comes in and ignores the Constitution. Big deal.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

One of the greatest pieces of American history they don't teach you in school:

Here's a link from NBC, although it never mentions the Second Amendment, they were forced to publish it since Chris Mathews was dumbstruck when his guest mentioned the event.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14138208/#.UUjMdFdGQdU

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw]The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

One of the greatest pieces of American history they don't teach you in school:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw]The Battle of Athens: Restoring the Rule of Law - YouTube[/ame]

Nonsense. There's no armed revolt over any other constitutional infringement, why would there be over ignoring the second amendment? They already ignore the second amendment, frankly, and I'm not seeing anybody trying to take out the government, thankfully.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Nonsense. There's no armed revolt over any other constitutional infringement, why would there be over ignoring the second amendment? They already ignore the second amendment, frankly, and I'm not seeing anybody trying to take out the government, thankfully.

Good job ignoring the MSNBC link.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nonsense. There's no armed revolt over any other constitutional infringement, why would there be over ignoring the second amendment? They already ignore the second amendment, frankly, and I'm not seeing anybody trying to take out the government, thankfully.

Good job ignoring the MSNBC link.

Good job editing your post after I've already begun responding. Regardless, what does it have to do with anything? I asked what the consequences of ignoring the Constitution are, and you basically said armed revolt. Well that's demonstrably nonsensical. There have been very few armed revolts in the history of the United States relative to the endless number of times the Constitution has been violated. You gave an example of one, good for you. The Second Amendment is already being violated, and yet there are no armed revolts going on now. Repealing the Second Amendment would be time consuming and politically unpopular, whereas simply ignoring it is immediate and flies under the radar. The answer is obvious, simply ignore the Second Amendment, which they're already doing, and you have no problems.

 

[BreezeWood]

simply defining Arms is sufficient - all public firearms must be lever or bolt action per round and with non detachable magazines ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Good job editing your post after I've already begun responding.

I edited at 4:41, you posted at 4:44. You know anyone can check that by looking at the bottom of each post correct?

However, I'm glad you agree that the Second Amendmet is being violated.

The reason that you've never seen an armed revolt in the United States (on a national scale), is because the Federal Government has NEVER attacked the entire Bill of rights at the SAME time. This will change if they continue to do so, and you will see and armed revolt. The video demonstrates that Americans will revolt when they oppressed enough. It is also arguable that blacks would have righteously revolted many times in our past had the KKK Democrats not disarmed them to impose Jim Crow laws and other tyrannical acts.

----------
Let's list every right (including those not in the Bill of Rights) that are under attack:

Habaes Corpus: Can only be suspended during times of Rebellion or INVASION (not war). We are not being invaded.

Freedom of Speech - Occupy Wall Street Organizers and Activists declared terrorists (I'm one of them), youtube censorship
Freedom of Press - Federal Government has been censoring google searches, corporate controlled media (corporations are the government)
Freedom of Assembly - Occupy Wall Street brutalities, god forbid anyone demonstrates against the Federal Reserve (the true government)
Freedom of Religion - Republicans are trying to impose their abortion views on us, in order to obtain BOUNDARIES AND LIMITATIONS on the 1st Amendment to apply to Speech, Press and Assembly.

Right to Bear Arms - No need to discuss this

Third Amendment - Agents of the government (drones) are hovering over our skies (quartering) for indefinite periods of time (tenancy) WITHOUT our CONSENT.

Fourth Amendment - Selectively suspended by law enforcement, Patriot Act is a good example (President Bush and Oil Czar Cheney)

All due process amendments - NDAA (President Obama)

Ninth Amendment - Corporate think tanks have trivialized this Amendment. The Amendment is a statement saying "All men are Endowed with Natural Rights, the government DOES NOT permit rights, Government is only a necessary evil that can deny or disparage your NATURAL RIGHTS." However, corporate America is brain washing people into thinking that the Government creates and permits rights. Such a a system is called "privileges" not "rights." Corporate America would like to create a government based on privileged, not rights. The Ninth Amendment is perhaps the MOST important of all the Amendments; it is the entire philosophical foundation of our Constitution.

Tenth Amendment - Shit on by the 17th Amendment (changed the system of choosing Senators, destroying the only bulwark that the States had against the Federal Government, coincidentally (not), it was also passed in the same year as the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act, which surrendered national sovereignty to the International Banks. So in one year (1913) we lost National and State Sovereignty to the international banks.

Article 3, Section 3, Treason and due process - Shit on by the NDAA and Patriot Act combined.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good job editing your post after I've already begun responding.

I edited at 4:41, you posted at 4:44. You know anyone can check that by looking at the bottom of each post correct?

Good job ignoring the rest of my post. Regardless, I'm aware. However, I began responding before you edited your post, even if my response was posted after your edit.

 

[Publius1787]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

To attempt to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment is to admit that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms. They'll never do it. They'll just continue to claim that plain English is Greek.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There's no question that American liberals would repeal the 2nd Amendment if they could. But the Democrat party itself ?

 

[Seawytch]

No need to repeal it. Well regulated is already in it. That's enough.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Man Up Democrats: Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment

Why??

​

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No need to repeal it. Well regulated is already in it. That's enough.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

 

[Jarlaxle]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

That should be punished with beheading.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

That should be punished with beheading.

I'm fairly sure that would fall under "cruel and unusual," but who would make such a ruling? The courts? They're part of the federal government that constantly undermines the Constitution. So the very same people supposedly limited by this document are also the same ones who get to interpret what it means. Convenient, huh?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[
That should be punished with beheading.

I'm pretty sure Impeachment would be fine.

Damn ... we'd have to impeach every living former President, the entire judiciary (by the judiciary lol?), every Senator and Congressmen, and possibly some top level bureaucrats.

What a spectacle.

New idea:
Start impeaching anyone who violates the Constitution starting AFTER the 2016 Elections, so no one can complain of foul play.