"Repeal The Second Amendment!"

[BluesLegend]

Repealing the 2nd amendment would accomplish nothing, our right to keep and bare arms is INALIENABLE and cannot be taken away.

Our right to keep and bare arms is NOT granted by the 2nd amendment, it is stated. The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away, they are given naturally to every individual at birth, and retained throughout life, inalienable. While most of our inalienable rights are not listed specifically in the U.S. Constitution, one was so important that it was defined in the 2nd amendment.

 

[martybegan]

You probably live in a place where gun rights are respected, I don't. I live in a place where only the well connected and rich get permits from the NYPD.

Just look at the back and forth I am having with NYcarbdipshit, he can't even admit that the waiting period and fees I talked about are infringement, or have the balls to say they are not.

i ignore that asshat because he never debates or talks, just slams and prances around.

yes, prances. i got no need to talk to a "prancer"

and i'm in texas so yes, it's literally go into a gun store, pick one out, check the "no" box all but 1 time and sign the other side. they make a phone call and 10 minutes later i walk out with a gun. your waiting period in texas is literally "how long will this call take"?

i would argue on your side that NYC is pretty damn strict to the point of restricting rights, but each state can make their own laws on this and it's up to the people to determine how these "rights" are handled. i just don't get how passing more and more laws will help stem gun violence when none of the laws/restrictions pass so far have done that.

that's why i want to back out and look at it all, not just slap a band aid on and let it keep limping along. in no way would i want to restrict rights of people to guns, but when someone has shit like:

1) gun crimes on their record
2) domestic abuse
3) history of mental illness and hurting others

these should be flagged. again, IF you deny someone the right to buy a gun, there MUST BE "due process' as to why you were denied and how to get that right restored.

but if you were caught with an illegal gun after already having gun charges against you, then at some point you lose the right to own/buy a gun and if you get caught with one after that, jail time. period.

it's not the laws but enforcement that is the issue, to me, as i understand things so far.

The thing is if a person follows the Constitution, the States shouldn't even have laws like we have in NYC. A perfect system would have struck them down already, but as we know the system is far from perfect when justices go on feeling and desires and not on the original text of the constitution itself.

and that's why i'd like to see the gov work with the NRA to come up with a plan. i'd like to see whoever is on this committee be trained and knowledgeable about guns and current laws. this is not an emotional problem to fix and we keep doing it emotionally.

The progressives are the ones with all the emotion. Again, we have a perfect example of what they want to do with the laws as set up in NYC.

which is why first and foremost my effort is to qualify people for being on the committee to work on this issue. i do agree progressives are the ones screaming w/o understanding, which is why i said you need to pass some form of test or go through a month of training to understand the issues first THEN you can help create / change laws and processes.

Inaccurate remarks on gun magazines put Rep. Diana DeGette under scrutiny – The Denver Post

shit like that is why i don't trust liberals to run with this. that and green tipped ammo is armor piercing. 100% a lie, so what else you lying about?

They lie about almost everything.

 

[iceberg]

i ignore that asshat because he never debates or talks, just slams and prances around.

yes, prances. i got no need to talk to a "prancer"

and i'm in texas so yes, it's literally go into a gun store, pick one out, check the "no" box all but 1 time and sign the other side. they make a phone call and 10 minutes later i walk out with a gun. your waiting period in texas is literally "how long will this call take"?

i would argue on your side that NYC is pretty damn strict to the point of restricting rights, but each state can make their own laws on this and it's up to the people to determine how these "rights" are handled. i just don't get how passing more and more laws will help stem gun violence when none of the laws/restrictions pass so far have done that.

that's why i want to back out and look at it all, not just slap a band aid on and let it keep limping along. in no way would i want to restrict rights of people to guns, but when someone has shit like:

1) gun crimes on their record
2) domestic abuse
3) history of mental illness and hurting others

these should be flagged. again, IF you deny someone the right to buy a gun, there MUST BE "due process' as to why you were denied and how to get that right restored.

but if you were caught with an illegal gun after already having gun charges against you, then at some point you lose the right to own/buy a gun and if you get caught with one after that, jail time. period.

it's not the laws but enforcement that is the issue, to me, as i understand things so far.

The thing is if a person follows the Constitution, the States shouldn't even have laws like we have in NYC. A perfect system would have struck them down already, but as we know the system is far from perfect when justices go on feeling and desires and not on the original text of the constitution itself.

and that's why i'd like to see the gov work with the NRA to come up with a plan. i'd like to see whoever is on this committee be trained and knowledgeable about guns and current laws. this is not an emotional problem to fix and we keep doing it emotionally.

The progressives are the ones with all the emotion. Again, we have a perfect example of what they want to do with the laws as set up in NYC.

which is why first and foremost my effort is to qualify people for being on the committee to work on this issue. i do agree progressives are the ones screaming w/o understanding, which is why i said you need to pass some form of test or go through a month of training to understand the issues first THEN you can help create / change laws and processes.

Inaccurate remarks on gun magazines put Rep. Diana DeGette under scrutiny – The Denver Post

shit like that is why i don't trust liberals to run with this. that and green tipped ammo is armor piercing. 100% a lie, so what else you lying about?

They lie about almost everything.

and yep. that does make fixing this difficult when you catch them at it and they just NEENER NEENER around you.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

We appear to actually be moving towards a tipping point here. Maybe we really have finally had enough.

If conservatives continue to play this libertarian all-or-nothing game, I suspect they're going to regret it.

If we lose the 2A everyone is going to regret it.

 

[jc456]

Repeal the Second Amendment, and replace it work something work-able for both sides of the Gun-Control argument.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, so to speak.

When conditions change - when the needs of the Nation change - the Constitution changes.

Time for the Constitution to change, again.

Yes....they registered their guns and turned them in, in Germany using the same arguments you guys use......and they only ended up murdering 12 million unarmed, men, women and children...

and today following the Parkland event, the Hitler wannabees on the left and media are now rounding up the children to tell us adults how to live our lives. How Hitler like right? Dangling the kids to take away our guns.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

 

[hunarcy]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

No we're going with the gun fondler's definition. They like to interpret it so it fits inside their bubble then everyone gets to parse the words and determine what they mean TODAY.

 

[hunarcy]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

Ah, the laughing icon, the refuge of those who have no real argument.

 

[hunarcy]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

No we're going with the gun fondler's definition. They like to interpret it so it fits inside their bubble then everyone gets to parse the words and determine what they mean TODAY.

It's well established...you should look it up and stop braying like a jackass. Here, let me get you started...the definition of well-regulated

 

[BluesLegend]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

No we're going with the gun fondler's definition. They like to interpret it so it fits inside their bubble then everyone gets to parse the words and determine what they mean TODAY.

Interpret the 2nd any way you like, our right to keep and bare arms is inalienable and can't be taken away so choke on that. Cue libs saying bbbb...but

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The multi-millionaire who hates capitalism only Liberals believe a word the fat fucking moron says.

 

[iceberg]

Just repeal ignorance and everything starts getting better immediately. No amendments are going to be repealed, guns just need to be well regulated like the 2nd amendment says. Those who don't like that can cry in their beer, they've had it easy for a long time and now it's time to reel in this wreckless policy of having military type weapons with huge magazines available to every mentally ill 17 year old.

It was not guns that were to be "well regulated", it was the militia. And in the context of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

And, it's already illegal for 17 year olds to purchase firearms of any kind.

No we're going with the gun fondler's definition. They like to interpret it so it fits inside their bubble then everyone gets to parse the words and determine what they mean TODAY.

um...liberals are the ones who redefined "assault rifle" to be what it means TODAY.

 

[jc456]

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.

background checks need to be more inclusive.

What do you mean more inclusive?

 

[jc456]

The multi-millionaire who hates capitalism only Liberals believe a word the fat fucking moron says.

capitalism that allowed him to be a millionaire. he doesn't want anyone under him to rise that. He'll take out any american.

 

[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.

background checks need to be more inclusive.

What do you mean more inclusive?

look for more potential clues.

Prohibited persons[edit]
Under sections 922(g)[17] and (n)[18] of the GCA certain persons are prohibited from:

• Shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
• Receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.[19]

A prohibited person is one who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[19]

is that enough and/or how do we pull this info? for example, the military doesn't always give discharge issues to these records and someone was able to buy a gun w/a dishonorable discharge on their record because, well, it wasn't on their record.

 

[jc456]

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.

background checks need to be more inclusive.

What do you mean more inclusive?

look for more potential clues.

Prohibited persons[edit]
Under sections 922(g)[17] and (n)[18] of the GCA certain persons are prohibited from:

• Shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
• Receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.[19]

A prohibited person is one who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a defined term in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)[19]

is that enough and/or how do we pull this info? for example, the military doesn't always give discharge issues to these records and someone was able to buy a gun w/a dishonorable discharge on their record because, well, it wasn't on their record.

expelled, fired, many things can be added.

 

[pismoe]

------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

-------------------------------------------- and i'd agree with those advocates , machine guns are cool and are available in Class 3 States . The only problem with machine guns is their cost as a full auto costs lots of money since 1984 [think it was] . Before that they were pretty cheap Alang . --- ---

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.

-------------------------------------------- and i'd agree with those advocates , machine guns are cool and are available in Class 3 States . The only problem with machine guns is their cost as a full auto costs lots of money since 1984 [think it was] . Before that they were pretty cheap Alang . --- ---

I hope they police their brass.

 

[pismoe]

--- No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise --- just video and audio of Alangs anti gunners talking plans and wishes and memorialized on tape .