Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Concerned American]

They're exactly the same thing.

The 21st Amendment, section 1, simply says: The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Amendment 28 could simply say, "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

We don't want that to happen but if we depend on people to help protect us from it who don't understand how the process works, we could easily be suckered.... Please do some research.

I stand corrected. However, according to one source, the odds of the second being repealed are roughly the same as an 80 year old person being struck by lightening during their lifetime.

 

[woodwork201]

I stand corrected. However, according to one source, the odds of the second being repealed are roughly the same as an 80 year old person being struck by lightening during their lifetime.

I hope you're right and I tend to agree in the short term but elected Republicans are followers and not leaders. When the Democrats are in charge, the Democrats run things. When the Republicans are in charge, the Democrats run things...

I would not be at all surprised to see an effort get out of Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It might be close in the States.

I think that the repeal is inevitable. The question will be is whether or not there are enough Americans left by that time who still understand and love liberty to make the repeal, and any laws passed afterwards, meaningless and without effect.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Compromises, you say? Like taking just some of our guns instead of all of our guns? When you say real, viable, compromises and solutions, please explain what you're thinking of.

Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer that.

I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.

I have no problem with background checks, and I believe that red flag laws can be written to protect a gun owner, or a potential gun owner, from someone simply making a malicious report about someone's mental stability. I certainly don't want some psychotic getting his hands on a gun, nor do I want anyone who's ever been convicted of a violent crime to have one. But, at the same time, I don't want someone who has no history of mental instability to be denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because his ex-girlfriend is a vengeful bitch.

Now, with background checks, I don't believe they should be tied to a gun purchase. John Q. Public should be able to have a background check conducted on him without him buying a gun. The same thing with a license. Someone should be allowed to obtain a license (in those States where it's required) regardless of whether or not they actually own or want to purchase a gun. It's like a concealed carry permit. I have one, but I have no legal obligation to carry a gun.

Someone should be able to obtain a background check and license (where required) without any legal requirement that he purchase a gun.

Gun registration is pretty much a non-starter for me, simply because it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, make anyone more safe. All it does is identify someone as a gun owner, and that knowledge is not going to keep someone from being the victim of gun violence.

I would also move to enact almost inhumane punishments for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, so much so that, in practice, anyone who's convicted of a crime while in possession of a gun can be pretty sure that his life is, effectively, over...

 

[2aguy]

Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer that.

I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.

I have no problem with background checks, and I believe that red flag laws can be written to protect a gun owner, or a potential gun owner, from someone simply making a malicious report about someone's mental stability. I certainly don't want some psychotic getting his hands on a gun, nor do I want anyone who's ever been convicted of a violent crime to have one. But, at the same time, I don't want someone who has no history of mental instability to be denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because his ex-girlfriend is a vengeful bitch.

Now, with background checks, I don't believe they should be tied to a gun purchase. John Q. Public should be able to have a background check conducted on him without him buying a gun. The same thing with a license. Someone should be allowed to obtain a license (in those States where it's required) regardless of whether or not they actually own or want to purchase a gun. It's like a concealed carry permit. I have one, but I have no legal obligation to carry a gun.

Someone should be able to obtain a background check and license (where required) without any legal requirement that he purchase a gun.

Gun registration is pretty much a non-starter for me, simply because it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, make anyone more safe. All it does is identify someone as a gun owner, and that knowledge is not going to keep someone from being the victim of gun violence.

I would also move to enact almost inhumane punishments for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, so much so that, in practice, anyone who's convicted of a crime while in possession of a gun can be pretty sure that his life is, effectively, over...

My concept.....


Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....

The app is free, available to anyone, and it doesn't store the data......

Funny thing is....the gun grabbers never want to go for that.....they need gun registration......so they can ban and confiscate guns.

 

[Canon Shooter]

My concept.....


Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....

The app is free, available to anyone, and it doesn't store the data......

There's just too much opportunity for misuse.

If I drop my wallet somewhere, I don't want the guy who finds it running a background check on me. Not that there's anything I'm worried about, it's just that my background is none of his fucking business.

The other problem is that whoever finds my wallet can "store" whatever data he receives if he has a pen and paper...

Funny thing is....the gun grabbers never want to go for that.....they need gun registration......so they can ban and confiscate guns.

Agreed...

 

[2aguy]

There's just too much opportunity for misuse.

If I drop my wallet somewhere, I don't want the guy who finds it running a background check on me. Not that there's anything I'm worried about, it's just that my background is none of his fucking business.

The other problem is that whoever finds my wallet can "store" whatever data he receives if he has a pen and paper...



Agreed...

Free phone app......its the 21st century......

 

[Canon Shooter]

Free phone app......its the 21st century......

And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.

Do you honestly not see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?

If you lose you're wallet, and someone with half a brain in his head finds it, I can tell you right now, you're fucked. Are there any credit cards in that wallet? Got an American Express Centurion card in there? Now they know you've got money. If you've got a Centurion card, you probably have a lot of nice stuff in your house. A would-be thief can sit outside your house until everyone leaves, crash through your back door and rob you blind.

And that's all before he runs a background check on you and find out all kinds of information about you that, normally, he'd have absolutely no access to.

Like I said, there's just too much opportunity for abuse with your concept...

 

[2aguy]

And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.

Do you honestly not see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?

If you lose you're wallet, and someone with half a brain in his head finds it, I can tell you right now, you're fucked. Are there any credit cards in that wallet? Got an American Express Centurion card in there? Now they know you've got money. If you've got a Centurion card, you probably have a lot of nice stuff in your house. A would-be thief can sit outside your house until everyone leaves, crash through your back door and rob you blind.

And that's all before he runs a background check on you and find out all kinds of information about you that, normally, he'd have absolutely no access to.

Like I said, there's just too much opportunity for abuse with your concept...

Just needs access to the NICS data base and what the cops use in their cars

 

[2aguy]

And how would an app developer gain access to the same information that the police get? That would require the cooperation of literally every single municipality in the country.

Do you honestly not see the potential for abuse of someone's personal information with that?

If you lose you're wallet, and someone with half a brain in his head finds it, I can tell you right now, you're fucked. Are there any credit cards in that wallet? Got an American Express Centurion card in there? Now they know you've got money. If you've got a Centurion card, you probably have a lot of nice stuff in your house. A would-be thief can sit outside your house until everyone leaves, crash through your back door and rob you blind.

And that's all before he runs a background check on you and find out all kinds of information about you that, normally, he'd have absolutely no access to.

Like I said, there's just too much opportunity for abuse with your concept...

If they have your wallet they know where you live anyway…whether you have a record or not isn’t important to them

 

[Canon Shooter]

Just needs access to the NICS data base and what the cops use in their cars

So you think every swingin' dick in the country should be granted access to that?

How comfortable are you with a stranger having that information?

 

[Canon Shooter]

If they have your wallet they know where you live anyway…whether you have a record or not isn’t important to them

With all due respect, if someone finds your wallet, you have no idea what's important to them. Is there something in your background they can blackmail you with? Can they extort money from you?

Yes, they know where you live. They can now watch as you take your lovely children to school. They can follow you and see what time you drop them off. They'll follow you to see what time you pick them up.

Maybe tomorrow they get to your children five minutes before you do when you go to pick them up.

They can find out where you work; where your wife works. If they have your name and address, they can sure as get her name, too.

Maybe you don't have an appreciation for how much information becomes vulnerable when only a little bit of seemingly innocuous information is released.

I understand the spirit of your suggestion and, while I applaud it, it's not something which could ever be viable...

 

[Concerned American]

Free phone app......its the 21st century......

There are a few of us that don't have cell phones or live in a place where cell service is available. I am lucky to have "dial-up speed" internet service.

 

[2aguy]

With all due respect, if someone finds your wallet, you have no idea what's important to them. Is there something in your background they can blackmail you with? Can they extort money from you?

Yes, they know where you live. They can now watch as you take your lovely children to school. They can follow you and see what time you drop them off. They'll follow you to see what time you pick them up.

Maybe tomorrow they get to your children five minutes before you do when you go to pick them up.

They can find out where you work; where your wife works. If they have your name and address, they can sure as get her name, too.

Maybe you don't have an appreciation for how much information becomes vulnerable when only a little bit of seemingly innocuous information is released.

I understand the spirit of your suggestion and, while I applaud it, it's not something which could ever be viable...

Yeah….which has no bearing on a phone app for background checks……

 

[woodwork201]

In my time on this site there has been more than one instance where I've been in a debate with you where I had to just move on.

It's not that you were right and proved me wrong, it's that you were forceful enough in your argument, and your arguments, even though wrong, were at least of such quality that to continue to challenge them was just more work than I wanted to do. You've been a very respectable debate opponent. Until now.

This is the weakest, most full-of-shit, argument I have ever seen from you. What you're doing here is openly admitting that you are a gun controller. All the arguments you've ever made against gun control and in support of the right to keep and bear arms, were lies.

Like most who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, you actually support neither because you can't support the 2nd Amendment without "shall not be infringed" and you can not support the Constitution without supporting the 2nd Amendment. When it comes to intellectual honesty, those who believe the 2nd Amendment describes a militia or a State right are more honest than the posts below.

Or how about taking none of them? I'd certainly prefer that.

Then how is that compromise? The only outcome of compromise in the 2nd Amendment is that someone doesn't get some arm that the Amendment protects.

Just keep in mind that when you support gun control that ignores "shall not be infringed" then you accept that the Government is not created or bound by the Constitution but is some all-powerful agency that can do anything it chooses to anyone they choose whenever they choose and it is only by their providence that they let us live, let alone speak or own a gun or go to church.

I believe that any new laws enacted should be done so in the name of further protecting the public.

Are you of the belief that some existing gun laws were not enacted in the name of further protecting the public? Don't you think that the argument made in defense of every single one of them was to protect the public? And most who supported those laws, including most Congress people who voted for those laws, believe the supported them in the name of further protecting the public.

How has that worked out? The last 3 majorly covered shootings were all by people who bought their guns legally after all of the gun control laws. Illinois even had red flag laws and the police had been to the guy's house and taken his knives, swords, and guns in the past. The guy had made threats to do shootings, to kill his family, to kill himself. And yet, he was able to buy a gun.

Have all the laws against criminals having guns stopped a single criminal who ever wanted to get a gun and shoot someone? Well, we can't know that but we know for certain that every convicted criminal who gets a gun and commits another murder or crime was able to get a gun.

So, please tell us which laws you think are going to work to further protect the public.

I have no problem with background checks, and I believe that red flag laws can be written to protect a gun owner, or a potential gun owner, from someone simply making a malicious report about someone's mental stability.

You like background checks because they have such a wonderful track record of protecting people. Like those in Buffalo, in Uvalde, and those in Highland Park? Or what about Stoneman Douglas High School. Seriously, please tell me of a case where background checks prevented a mass shooting.

I know; proving a negative and you can't do it. But we know that almost every mass shooting in modern times was with a legally purchased gun that went through a background check. Even the Sandy Hook killing was with a legally purchased gun but the killer killed his own mother to get it.

I certainly don't want some psychotic getting his hands on a gun, nor do I want anyone who's ever been convicted of a violent crime to have one.

Please tell of a single case where a mass shooter had to buy a gun illegally to commit their crime? How's that convicted felon thing doing in Chicago or anywhere else? The only thing this law does, as with every gun law, is prevent those felons who actually were reformed, and all of their family members that live with them or visit routinely, from being able to protect themselves, though they have never been convicted of a crime.

I haven't searched it but I'd bet money that you've posted or thanked posts from others saying that gun laws only restrict the law abiding.

But, at the same time, I don't want someone who has no history of mental instability to be denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because his ex-girlfriend is a vengeful bitch.

Really? What if they go nuts a week after buying a gun? What is the threshold of mental instability? Who determines it?

Is being a Trump voter proof of mental instability? Many here say it is.

Is a man walking around in public in a dress and high-heels and a beard, claiming to be a woman a sign of mental instability? Of course it is, so do we stop all transvestites from owning guns? Is having your dick cut off so you can fool other men into believing you're a woman so you can have male/male sex with unsuspecting men a sign of mental instability? Of course it is, so no guns for transsexuals.

Now, with background checks, I don't believe they should be tied to a gun purchase. John Q. Public should be able to have a background check conducted on him without him buying a gun. The same thing with a license. Someone should be allowed to obtain a license (in those States where it's required) regardless of whether or not they actually own or want to purchase a gun. It's like a concealed carry permit. I have one, but I have no legal obligation to carry a gun.

Why in the hell would I need to do a background check on myself? I know if I'm a felon or not. I might want to do a records check to see if the State has mistakenly tagged me with something incorrectly but that's not a background check. Do you think you have the right to do a background check on me, other than a public records check? I mean, you can do that now.

But of all the stupid ideas you have here, and they're all pretty fucking stupid, buying a license to get the government's permission to do something you're not actually going to do, asking the government to check you out, is most certainly the stupidest idea I have ever heard in a gun control discussion.

Gun registration is pretty much a non-starter for me, simply because it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, make anyone more safe. All it does is identify someone as a gun owner, and that knowledge is not going to keep someone from being the victim of gun violence.

Of course you support gun registration. You support background checks and background checks require gun registration in order to be enforceable.

I would also move to enact almost inhumane punishments for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, so much so that, in practice, anyone who's convicted of a crime while in possession of a gun can be pretty sure that his life is, effectively, over...

So what you're telling Sharon Tate's family is that the hacking, tortuous, death of their beloved daughter is not as serious as the death of someone's daughter who at least didn't see it coming and died instantly because she was shot in the back of the head. Hacked to death with an axe is less evil than shot to death with a gun.

Beaten with a baseball bat in a robbery is not as bad as someone pointed a gun at you and demanded your money?

Some how Sharon Tate, and others who die violently with sharp or blunt instruments, end up just as dead as the ones shot with guns.

Why would not whatever is the worst, barely acceptable under the 8th Amendment, punishment for murder apply to all murderers regardless of the tool used to commit the crime?

Gun enhancements for criminals only prove that you actually believe that it is the gun and not the criminal.

You're a gun controller. But it's a crowded space on this site so you'll never be lonely, that's for sure.

 

[woodwork201]

My concept.....


Free phone app....you submit the drivers license number, or the name and birthdate of an individual....and you get all the data a cop gets when they do a traffic stop.......if you are a felon or have outstanding arrest warrants....

The app is free, available to anyone, and it doesn't store the data......

Funny thing is....the gun grabbers never want to go for that.....they need gun registration......so they can ban and confiscate guns.

Those apps exist today. Every time I search for a name online all I get is pages of people wanting me to pay them 27 dollars for a public records search across all states.

If you're selling a gun privately you can ask the buyer if he will submit to such a search. That's between you and him. I sure wouldn't be buying your guns but there are plenty who probably would.

 

[woodwork201]

Free phone app......its the 21st century......

My washing machine has an app. I installed it but didn't give it the permissions it wanted because it wanted access to my call records and my location.

I emailed them to ask why the hell would my washing machine need to know that. Their response was that they needed it so they could tell where my machine was for understanding its operating environment.

I informed them that I don't carry my washing machine with me and then I uninstalled the app.

 

[Canon Shooter]

In my time on this site there has been more than one instance where I've been in a debate with you where I had to just move on.

It's not that you were right and proved me wrong, it's that you were forceful enough in your argument, and your arguments, even though wrong, were at least of such quality that to continue to challenge them was just more work than I wanted to do. You've been a very respectable debate opponent. Until now.

This is the weakest, most full-of-shit, argument I have ever seen from you. What you're doing here is openly admitting that you are a gun controller. All the arguments you've ever made against gun control and in support of the right to keep and bear arms, were lies.

Like most who pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, you actually support neither because you can't support the 2nd Amendment without "shall not be infringed" and you can not support the Constitution without supporting the 2nd Amendment. When it comes to intellectual honesty, those who believe the 2nd Amendment describes a militia or a State right are more honest than the posts below.


Then how is that compromise? The only outcome of compromise in the 2nd Amendment is that someone doesn't get some arm that the Amendment protects.

Just keep in mind that when you support gun control that ignores "shall not be infringed" then you accept that the Government is not created or bound by the Constitution but is some all-powerful agency that can do anything it chooses to anyone they choose whenever they choose and it is only by their providence that they let us live, let alone speak or own a gun or go to church.

Are you of the belief that some existing gun laws were not enacted in the name of further protecting the public? Don't you think that the argument made in defense of every single one of them was to protect the public? And most who supported those laws, including most Congress people who voted for those laws, believe the supported them in the name of further protecting the public.

How has that worked out? The last 3 majorly covered shootings were all by people who bought their guns legally after all of the gun control laws. Illinois even had red flag laws and the police had been to the guy's house and taken his knives, swords, and guns in the past. The guy had made threats to do shootings, to kill his family, to kill himself. And yet, he was able to buy a gun.

Have all the laws against criminals having guns stopped a single criminal who ever wanted to get a gun and shoot someone? Well, we can't know that but we know for certain that every convicted criminal who gets a gun and commits another murder or crime was able to get a gun.

So, please tell us which laws you think are going to work to further protect the public.


You like background checks because they have such a wonderful track record of protecting people. Like those in Buffalo, in Uvalde, and those in Highland Park? Or what about Stoneman Douglas High School. Seriously, please tell me of a case where background checks prevented a mass shooting.

I know; proving a negative and you can't do it. But we know that almost every mass shooting in modern times was with a legally purchased gun that went through a background check. Even the Sandy Hook killing was with a legally purchased gun but the killer killed his own mother to get it.


Please tell of a single case where a mass shooter had to buy a gun illegally to commit their crime? How's that convicted felon thing doing in Chicago or anywhere else? The only thing this law does, as with every gun law, is prevent those felons who actually were reformed, and all of their family members that live with them or visit routinely, from being able to protect themselves, though they have never been convicted of a crime.

I haven't searched it but I'd bet money that you've posted or thanked posts from others saying that gun laws only restrict the law abiding.


Really? What if they go nuts a week after buying a gun? What is the threshold of mental instability? Who determines it?

Is being a Trump voter proof of mental instability? Many here say it is.

Is a man walking around in public in a dress and high-heels and a beard, claiming to be a woman a sign of mental instability? Of course it is, so do we stop all transvestites from owning guns? Is having your dick cut off so you can fool other men into believing you're a woman so you can have male/male sex with unsuspecting men a sign of mental instability? Of course it is, so no guns for transsexuals.

Why in the hell would I need to do a background check on myself? I know if I'm a felon or not. I might want to do a records check to see if the State has mistakenly tagged me with something incorrectly but that's not a background check. Do you think you have the right to do a background check on me, other than a public records check? I mean, you can do that now.

But of all the stupid ideas you have here, and they're all pretty fucking stupid, buying a license to get the government's permission to do something you're not actually going to do, asking the government to check you out, is most certainly the stupidest idea I have ever heard in a gun control discussion.

Of course you support gun registration. You support background checks and background checks require gun registration in order to be enforceable.

So what you're telling Sharon Tate's family is that the hacking, tortuous, death of their beloved daughter is not as serious as the death of someone's daughter who at least didn't see it coming and died instantly because she was shot in the back of the head. Hacked to death with an axe is less evil than shot to death with a gun.

Beaten with a baseball bat in a robbery is not as bad as someone pointed a gun at you and demanded your money?

Some how Sharon Tate, and others who die violently with sharp or blunt instruments, end up just as dead as the ones shot with guns.

Why would not whatever is the worst, barely acceptable under the 8th Amendment, punishment for murder apply to all murderers regardless of the tool used to commit the crime?

Gun enhancements for criminals only prove that you actually believe that it is the gun and not the criminal.

You're a gun controller. But it's a crowded space on this site so you'll never be lonely, that's for sure.

You've made it clear that the only acceptable solution for you is to get rid of all the guns.

Well, see, here's the thing: That's not happening. It's just not.

Registering guns makes no one safe, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

I want you to have a license to run your mouth. Until you have one, shut the fuck up...

 

[woodwork201]

You've made it clear that the only acceptable solution for you is to get rid of all the guns.

Well, see, here's the thing: That's not happening. It's just not.

Registering guns makes no one safe, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

I want you to have a license to run your mouth. Until you have one, shut the fuck up...

What a fucking lying hypocrite. You propose gun control and I prove how unconstitutional, illogical, and just plain stupid is every thing you proposed. You proposed mandatory background checks which, as we all know, require mandatory registration for enforcement so you really supported registration, not me. And you now claim I am the one who wants the guns banned? Unfucking believable.

That's about 6, so far, fake gun-rights-supporters, 6 Fudds, who have been fooling people here that they support gun rights when, in actuality, you and they are shrills for the Bloombergs and you know it. I can't help but wonder if each of you is only here at the behest of the Bloombergs to interject your "reasonable gun control" ideas into the argument. I wonder if you really are just an anti-gun plant.

I know for sure that you're an anti-gun liar.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What a fucking lying hypocrite. You propose gun control and I prove how unconstitutional, illogical, and just plain stupid is every thing you proposed. You proposed mandatory background checks which, as we all know, require mandatory registration for enforcement so you really supported registration, not me. And you now claim I am the one who wants the guns banned? Unfucking believable.

That's about 6, so far, fake gun-rights-supporters, 6 Fudds, who have been fooling people here that they support gun rights when, in actuality, you and they are shrills for the Bloombergs and you know it. I can't help but wonder if each of you is only here at the behest of the Bloombergs to interject your "reasonable gun control" ideas into the argument. I wonder if you really are just an anti-gun plant.

I know for sure that you're an anti-gun liar.

You're just a gun-snatching little bitch.

My stance on background checks is no secret. I've shared it in various threads. Either this is the only thread you're reading or you're an idiot.

I believe someone should be able to obtain a background check without purchasing a gun. There's no reason that it couldn't be treated like a concealed carry permit. I have carry permit, and there was absolutely no requirement that I own a gun to obtain it.

Well, why not do the same with background checks? That way, a person could get a background check without the need to pay for a concealed carry permit (which requires a background check).

It could be done, and it could be done easily, and there wouldn't be a single reason to register anything.

So, before you wet yourself yet again, try to engage your brain a little bit and try to comprehend the reality that an alternative can be accomplished.

I realize gun haters like you have some difficulty with that, but give it a shot, dipshit...

 

[Concerned American]

That way, a person could get a background check without the need to pay for a concealed carry permit

Pay? That sounds like an infringement on my rights to "bear arms."