"Repeal The Second Amendment!"

[NYcarbineer]

Here's another one blabbering.

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere. Quit fearmongering. You sound ridiculous.

We are one justice away from losing it...

You win stupid post of the day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's another one blabbering.

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

I don't recall you ever mocking the many on the Right who have for years blabbered about constitutional amendments that could never pass,

e.g. the anti-abortion amendment, or the anti marriage equality amendment.

Now why would that be, on your part? Because you're a partisan fuckwit?

 

[ChrisL]

I propose that the next time a Muslim terror attack happens, that we BAN the Muslim religion. We aren't going to ban ALL religions, just the Muslim religion. They use various tools at their disposal to accomplish their terrorist goals, bombs, knives, vehicles, guns, so it isn't so much the tool I am concerned about but rather the dangerous ideology which has seduced some into joining the cause of murdering innocent American citizens here and abroad. So, since I don't want to ban ALL religions and even though the vast majority of Muslims have never harmed anyone, I feel justified in banning their right to practice that particular religion due to the violence. How many children around the world have been killed in Muslim terror attacks?

Nobody is proposing a BAN on guns

Merely enhanced background checks on all purchases

Why do conservatives oppose it?

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.

To them control = ban

------------------------------------------------------------------- in response to you Alang . --- No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise ---

Of course! They think we are stupid or something. Lol. The Constitution put our 2nd amendment rights into place to protect us from the government, and here we have government officials who want to take away our 2nd amendment right, and there are actually people who are supporting them, because of the actions of a few whacked out lunatics!

I read a really good comment on that blog too. Rebecca seems smart.

Rebecca • 4 years ago


I live in ct and it's a sad time to be a gun owner. I am consistently guilted and made to feel bad because of my beluga in the 2nd amendment. I have been told that I am somehow responsible for the maniacs who commit atrocities like newtown. It's sad that in the birthplace of gun manufacturing that the people have been brainwashed so badly by the media that they now believe anyone with a gun is now they enemy. I hope someday this madness stops n we can get back to our long proud history of gun ownership in this country.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The problem is it shouldn't be decided at the ballot box unless the 2nd is repealed.

How about we let abortion and gay marriage go to the ballot box in places like Alabama?

The constitutional issues go to the ballot box all the time, when we elect presidents and Senators, because they get to decide who goes on the Supreme Court.

If you think progressive end runs by 5 of 9 unelected lawyers are OK, and of course you do, because you are a progressive half-wit.

Trump and his cult have spent a year listing as one of Trump's 'great accomplishment's getting a conservative on the Court.

try 59 he has set a record on the number of judges

--LOL

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

all while you have been busy posting another "we really REALLY got him this time" post

ya dumb dumb

Tell the other poster. He's the one demonizing unelected judges.

you are the one that seemed oblivious

 

[iceberg]

there is no god given right to anything, rights are what man has put up and chosen to defend

Not according to America's foundational documents.

great. then take our "god given rights" to another country, say n korea, and demand they honor them.

let me know how that goes.

What a silly, childish response. Do you deny the Founders considered certain rights as inalienable and God-given as part of the founding philosophy?

and if you don't believe in God, do you have no rights? and if God gives these out, why are they not the same in every country, even the ones who believe in God?

and i'm the one doing silly, childish responses.

 

[iceberg]

that's another issue that clogs this up - states can and will pass their own laws.

And those laws cannot be against the constitution. NYC's law is obviously infringement, but a case has never reached far enough up the courts to do anything about it.

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

 

[iceberg]

again - then where do we go from here? sitting around saying WE DON'T TRUST YOU is only going to go so far.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- can't do much , GunOwners have RIGHTS . Stand on those Legal RIGHTS and don't give an inch , be ready and see what happens .

those rights are there because we agree to them and do in fact, defend them. but *we the people* can and do change our rights all the time. there is no god given right to anything, rights are what man has put up and chosen to defend. you can either work to resolve issues you're perceived to be a part of or you can stand that ground until they take that ground away.

The only way to change them is 2/3 of Congress (or conventions) and 3/4 of the States.

anything else is an end run.

And rights are inherent in man, regardless of the source, the only thing the constitution does is prevent government from interfering in them.

Without that, your other option is to fight.

then again, go to another country and demand your "rights" as we define them here.

we have them because we decide on what they are and we defend them to the death. pretty much all there is to it.

Why go to another country? All I ask is the that the US constitution be followed, and if people don't want to follow it, put in the effort to amend it.

We have them as rights protected from government interference because of the Constitution. We have them as rights because of who we are.

and in saying the background checks need to be expanded, i am all for doing this by process, however that needs to be done.

we have rights because of who we are. yep. not because god gave them to us or they're inherent with being born.

 

[NYcarbineer]

that's another issue that clogs this up - states can and will pass their own laws.

And those laws cannot be against the constitution. NYC's law is obviously infringement, but a case has never reached far enough up the courts to do anything about it.

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide that.

 

[martybegan]

And those laws cannot be against the constitution. NYC's law is obviously infringement, but a case has never reached far enough up the courts to do anything about it.

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Of course! They think we are stupid or something. Lol. The Constitution put our 2nd amendment rights into place to protect us from the government,

Not quite. The Constitution has the 2nd amendment to give the big central government in Washington supremacy over state and local governments on the issue of gun ownership.

 

[martybegan]

And those laws cannot be against the constitution. NYC's law is obviously infringement, but a case has never reached far enough up the courts to do anything about it.

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide that.

That's not answering the question.

What is YOUR opinion, Yes or No?

 

[NYcarbineer]

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

If the government is rendered powerless over issues of who is 'worthy' or 'not worthy' of anything,

then you have no government.

 

[martybegan]

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

If the government is rendered powerless over issues of who is 'worthy' or 'not worthy' of anything,

then you have no government.

Sorry, but no. It's not about being rendered powerless it's about what process is allowed to decide it.

Right now the only constitutional way to lose ANY right unwillingly is via the courts, and only via individual prosecution or some other form of adjudication.

 

[alang1216]

------------------------------------------------------------------- in response to you Alang . --- No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise ---

I'd bet I could find quotes from gun advocates saying there should be NO restrictions of any kind. You want a machine gun, you should have one.

 

[Taz]

Why change something that works so well? What's a few mass shootings at schools every now and then between gun lovers?

You are going to have to change the Constitution in order to get what you want ...

I am telling you to knock yourself out trying to change the Constitution.
The Constitution gives you the ability to shoot yourself in the foot.

Your empty rhetoric means nothing ...
The fact you support the federal government is a result closely associated with the idea you embrace failure.

.

The Constitution has been changed plenty of times. Now you know.

 

[iceberg]

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

all to be looked into. no i don't have all the answers now, i'd need to much better understand the system we have and talk to people who don't get 100% defensive when you bring it up.

as it stands, this "worthy" is bullshit because we've set the "worthy" standard already because while not often, people can and will be denied.

you seem to be thinking i'm a COME GET YOUR GUNS LIBERAL and i'm just not gonna follow along the extreme path of those types of conversations. if you want about what can be done to improve our system let me know. if you simply want to slam anyone who tries to talk about it, then let me know that too and i'll just stop responding cause we've got different goals then.

 

[Contumacious]

Here's another one blabbering.

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

They want to repeal the 2A - fine - let them go for it.

Our right to bear arms is extra-constitutional , ie, is NOT dependent on the Constitution for its existence:

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."


So even if the fascists are successful in abolishing the 2A we still have the NATURAL RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR LIVES - SO KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT MOTHERFUCKERS


.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

then that would be up to someone in new york to push if it bugged them that much.

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide that.

That's not answering the question.

What is YOUR opinion, Yes or No?

You want me to 'rule' on a matter of constitutionality?

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

If the government is rendered powerless over issues of who is 'worthy' or 'not worthy' of anything,

then you have no government.

Sorry, but no. It's not about being rendered powerless it's about what process is allowed to decide it.

Right now the only constitutional way to lose ANY right unwillingly is via the courts, and only via individual prosecution or some other form of adjudication.

You don't 'lose a right' via the courts, you lose what you thought was a protected right and, turns out, the court didn't agree with you.

 

[hunarcy]

I know. The world is even MORE dangerous now. Even more reason to be armed and ready to defend yourself and your family from a lunatic. "Gun control" measures have not worked and will not work. Guess why?

Some "Gun control" measures do work. None of the mass shooting have been with the use of a fully-automatic guns. Guess why?

Because those who purchase them legally are law abiding citizens who don't break the law. The investment they make it unwise to use them illegally

 

[JoeMoma]

[

it's been tried over and over and it dies in lower courts.

then that would be up to them to determine their own gun laws. now is that a good or bad thing?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide that.

That's not answering the question.

What is YOUR opinion, Yes or No?

You want me to 'rule' on a matter of constitutionality?

As a US Citizen I have a right to keep and bear arms, and the State cannot infringe on that.

Is a 3-6 month waiting period and $600 in fees infringement or not?

those were never my questions or point i have been trying to make now is it?

i've said we have rights ONLY BECAUSE we agree upon them and protect them violently at times.
i've said our background checks need to be more inclusive.

never said a thing about NY Guns laws and not interested in that conversation because i am not familiar with them.

It's all part of the same conversation. It's part of the reason most RKBA people don't trust progressives and Democrats because they have an example of what progressives and democrats want.

And what categories do you want added to background checks, and who gets to decide who is "worthy" or not of having a gun?

If the government is rendered powerless over issues of who is 'worthy' or 'not worthy' of anything,

then you have no government.

Sorry, but no. It's not about being rendered powerless it's about what process is allowed to decide it.

Right now the only constitutional way to lose ANY right unwillingly is via the courts, and only via individual prosecution or some other form of adjudication.

You don't 'lose a right' via the courts, you lose what you thought was a protected right and, turns out, the court didn't agree with you.

Hail all wise supreme court that always makes correct decisions.....even when by a 5 to 4 vote.