Rolling Stone: Repeal Second Amendment

[emilynghiem]

meh

Nobody cares about Rolling Stone.......soon to be out of business.

This stuff is all just Soetero and his meathead pals trying to rouse the right......maybe provoke some nut so they can say, "Ahhhhhhh Haaaaaaaa!!"

Dear skookerasbil Unfortunately it's not just the popular media
but LAW SCHOOLS teaching the Constitution this way:
David S. Cohen - Kline School of Law

No wonder I can't find any Constitutional lawyers willing to fight for enforcement.
If they are all sold out to state bars and associations, that give money to
judges campaigns, and lawyers like the Clintons who raise money for candidates,
where do you think the biggest conflict of interest is coming from?

Perhaps the lawyers embedded in 80% of govt. Don't you think that poses
a conflict if they make money off laws that don't solve problems but just create more?

 

[skookerasbil]

meh

Nobody cares about Rolling Stone.......soon to be out of business.

This stuff is all just Soetero and his meathead pals trying to rouse the right......maybe provoke some nut so they can say, "Ahhhhhhh Haaaaaaaa!!"

Dear skookerasbil Unfortunately it's not just the popular media
but LAW SCHOOLS teaching the Constitution this way:
David S. Cohen - Kline School of Law

No wonder I can't find any Constitutional lawyers willing to fight for enforcement.
If they are all sold out to state bars and associations, that give money to
judges campaigns, and lawyers like the Clintons who raise money for candidates,
where do you think the biggest conflict of interest is coming from?

Perhaps the lawyers embedded in 80% of govt. Don't you think that poses
a conflict if they make money off laws that don't solve problems but just create more?

very astute take.............

 

[AntonToo]

Second amendment says people can own arms for the purpose of maintaining well trained militias.


Who in their right mind would object to fixing this clearly obsolete concern with barely any relevance to today's world and issues?

Not the one I read.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This one - right?

Seems quite straight forward - For the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia people owning arms should not be restricted.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, **** off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Do you have any actual evidence that a majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

I see you have a problem with comprehending what someone has said.

What I wrote is clearly visible above. Now answer.

Where have I said exactly that majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

Try reading it again, it might help. If it doesn't try reading it slowly. If you still can't understand, come back and I'll draw it for you.

"Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies."

What I actually said and what you claimed I said are opposite things.

 

[blackhawk]

Whatever journalistic credibility Rolling Stone had it lost after that campus rape story a story that was researched and done so badly a high school newspaper wouldn't have published it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's always amazed me how many liberals and, in other ways, conservatives, can be so willing to march themselves into slavery when their emotions get the better of them.

 

[emilynghiem]

And when they get that for which they beg will not some filthy capitalist get rich selling the tee-shirt to libbie-chill'ns?

View attachment 78291​

And what does the back of the shirt say HenryBHough
JE SUIS
Rolling Stone?

or
JE SUIS
Sitting Target?

 

[forkup]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, **** off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Why is it unreasonable to want to repeal an amendment which is directly responsible for the deaths of 30000 ppl in the US anually. At the same time conservatives are activly seeking a way around article 2 of the constitution in relation to supreme court replacement. The first amendment stating religious freedom and freedom of speech, this includes reprehensible as it is radical Islam. The 5th and 14th admendment calling for due process whith the patriot act and the start of Guantanomo bay? I put before you that the lack of gun control has and is causing many more deaths then radical Islam.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

meh

Nobody cares about Rolling Stone.......soon to be out of business.

This stuff is all just Soetero and his meathead pals trying to rouse the right......maybe provoke some nut so they can say, "Ahhhhhhh Haaaaaaaa!!"

It's working too.

I've been hearing about the story on nearly every talk show I listened to today. Maybe it's a smart business move by the Rolling Stone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no need or reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is put an end to minority obstructionism by the NRA's Republican party regarding reasonable regulation of guns.

And who determines what reasonable regulations are? Obviously not the Republicans. It must be the same people who believe they are the only ones who can define what a "fair share" is to the wealthy.

So I guess what you really mean to say is Liberal regulations of guns.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Guns are illegal in Chicago.. how's that working out?

Good grief....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's how the shooter in Orlando believed.

Really? Because last I heard, he was a registered Democrat.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no need or reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is put an end to minority obstructionism by the NRA's Republican party regarding reasonable regulation of guns.

And who determines what reasonable regulations are? Obviously not the Republicans. It must be the same people who believe they are the only ones who can define what a "fair share" is to the wealthy.

So I guess what you really mean to say is Liberal regulations of guns.

Dear Ray From Cleveland
If it's anything like Liberal regulations on health care,
we're all in trouble.
Liberals complain about the NRA lobby, like Prolife complain about Planned Parenthood.
But when it came to health care, Democrats did the same!
Benefiting corporate insurance lobbies that grabbed trillions in handouts
while taxpayers got stuck with insurance requirements, rates and bills we can't pay.
Where's the "free choice" in that?
If Democrats would sell out their own principles, who are they to regulate others?

 

[Ame®icano]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, **** off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Why is it unreasonable to want to repeal an amendment which is directly responsible for the deaths of 30000 ppl in the US anually. At the same time conservatives are activly seeking a way around article 2 of the constitution in relation to supreme court replacement. The first amendment stating religious freedom and freedom of speech, this includes reprehensible as it is radical Islam. The 5th and 14th admendment calling for due process whith the patriot act and the start of Guantanomo bay? I put before you that the lack of gun control has and is causing many more deaths then radical Islam.

I know what you're thinking... Lets throw in the mix a number large enough to make all this nonsense looking more serious and believable. Shoot.

Out of 30,000 gun related deaths, two thirds are suicides. Why they have to die so violently, like they couldn't just let themselves go off a building, or off a bridge, or swallow bottle of pills, or drive the car off the cliff.

Of course, driving car off the cliff would raise car related deaths, then we would have to do something about that, because you know, environment.

There are around 30,000 car related deaths in the USA every year and cars are much more regulated then guns. Following your logic it wouldn't be unreasonable if we just ban driving.

There are around 3500 accidental drowning deaths in the USA annually. That's 10 times more then accidental gun deaths. Why are we going to do about pools, outlaw them too?

Of course, your rant wouldn't be complete without a comment that constitutional right is a bigger problem then radical Islam. Bravo.

 

[forkup]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, **** off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Why is it unreasonable to want to repeal an amendment which is directly responsible for the deaths of 30000 ppl in the US anually. At the same time conservatives are activly seeking a way around article 2 of the constitution in relation to supreme court replacement. The first amendment stating religious freedom and freedom of speech, this includes reprehensible as it is radical Islam. The 5th and 14th admendment calling for due process whith the patriot act and the start of Guantanomo bay? I put before you that the lack of gun control has and is causing many more deaths then radical Islam.

I know what you're thinking... Lets throw in the mix a number large enough to make all this nonsense looking more serious and believable. Shoot.

Out of 30,000 gun related deaths, two thirds are suicides. Why they have to die so violently, like they couldn't just let themselves go off a building, or off a bridge, or swallow bottle of pills, or drive the car off the cliff.

Of course, driving car off the cliff would raise car related deaths, then we would have to do something about that, because you know, environment.

There are around 30,000 car related deaths in the USA every year and cars are much more regulated then guns. Following your logic it wouldn't be unreasonable if we just ban driving.

There are around 3500 accidental drowning deaths in the USA annually. That's 10 times more then accidental gun deaths. Why are we going to do about pools, outlaw them too?

Of course, your rant wouldn't be complete without a comment that constitutional right is a bigger problem then radical Islam. Bravo.

-Couple of things. You seem to be implying that te us doesn't hold the single highest death rate per capita due to firearms in the western world. Sorry this and countless other links say different http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
- Your car analogy sucks for the simple reason that most people NEED a car, and people who own and I'll exclude hunting rifles, WANT guns. One is a necessity, the other a choice.
- As to terrorism and constitutional right, it's an objective fact that terrorism does relatively little actual damage in terms of human life. It does of course, do a tremendous amount of damage psychologicaly. And constitutional right goes past 2 things I've noticed. To republicans, constitutional right only seems to apply on guns. It doesn't seem to apply to article 2 of the constitution when it comes to letting a president put forth a supreme court nominee. It doesn't seem to aplly to the first amendment when it comes to religious freedom. When your nominee call on a ban for Muslims entering the country, nore does it apply to the 6th and 14 amendment calling for due process, when a Republican president and congress, puts into effect the patriot act and allows gaumtanamo Bay. So tell me, why is only the second amendment untouchable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Rolling Stone barely has a little over a million subscribers. In a country of over 350 million that is the very definition of irrelevant

 

[Claudette]

The FF put that in so we could protect ourselves against our Govt. Smart men.

 

[Norman]

There is no need or reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is put an end to minority obstructionism by the NRA's Republican party regarding reasonable regulation of guns.

Reasonable regulation according to regressed liberal = ban all guns.

Which only increases homicide, and in fact even gun homicides. When the NRA points this out the liberals are pissed.

 

[Ame®icano]

-Couple of things. You seem to be implying that te us doesn't hold the single highest death rate per capita due to firearms in the western world. Sorry this and countless other links say different http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735

You said it yourself: "In the western world". You seem to be implying that "rest of the world" is not important when we're talking about firearms, but is important when we're talking about other things, like human and civil rights, earning per capita, etc. We could agree that Switzerland is part of the western world you're talking about and if you didn't know, adults there are required to have a gun. Then if you compare their gun related deaths to ours, you may think that guns might not be a real problem. There are plenty of article about who is committing the most of gun crimes, here is one.

Guns and race

- Your car analogy sucks for the simple reason that most people NEED a car, and people who own and I'll exclude hunting rifles, WANT guns. One is a necessity, the other a choice.

People don't need cars if they have alternative to it. Ask people of New York or San Francisco or London. Car gives you choice to drive where you want, whenever you want without being dependent on public transportation. Having car is not necessity, it's a choice not to ride a bus.

The same thing is with guns. You may chose to have a gun to protect your home and family and for self defense, or you may opt out for public service, ie police. I don't mind police, but they do not prevent someone breaking into my home, they usually just do report on it after it happens. To me, having gun to protect my home and family is necessity, because I can't really count on public service to do that for me.

But 2nd amendment is not about hunting and protecting home, but about keeping government in check. That's the only think that is standing between all other constitutional rights and tyrannical government. If you think it's not true, just look back in history.

- As to terrorism and constitutional right, it's an objective fact that terrorism does relatively little actual damage in terms of human life. It does of course, do a tremendous amount of damage psychologicaly. And constitutional right goes past 2 things I've noticed. To republicans, constitutional right only seems to apply on guns. It doesn't seem to apply to article 2 of the constitution when it comes to letting a president put forth a supreme court nominee. It doesn't seem to aplly to the first amendment when it comes to religious freedom. When your nominee call on a ban for Muslims entering the country, nore does it apply to the 6th and 14 amendment calling for due process, when a Republican president and congress, puts into effect the patriot act and allows gaumtanamo Bay. So tell me, why is only the second amendment untouchable.

In this rant you're trying to say something important, but it looks more like bowl of spaghetti with ragu sauce, and mozzarella cheese on it - a lot of tangled and unrelated mess.

 

[forkup]

-Couple of things. You seem to be implying that te us doesn't hold the single highest death rate per capita due to firearms in the western world. Sorry this and countless other links say different http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735

You said it yourself: "In the western world". You seem to be implying that "rest of the world" is not important when we're talking about firearms, but is important when we're talking about other things, like human and civil rights, earning per capita, etc. We could agree that Switzerland is part of the western world you're talking about and if you didn't know, adults there are required to have a gun. Then if you compare their gun related deaths to ours, you may think that guns might not be a real problem. There are plenty of article about who is committing the most of gun crimes, here is one.

Guns and race

- Your car analogy sucks for the simple reason that most people NEED a car, and people who own and I'll exclude hunting rifles, WANT guns. One is a necessity, the other a choice.

People don't need cars if they have alternative to it. Ask people of New York or San Francisco or London. Car gives you choice to drive where you want, whenever you want without being dependent on public transportation. Having car is not necessity, it's a choice not to ride a bus.

The same thing is with guns. You may chose to have a gun to protect your home and family and for self defense, or you may opt out for public service, ie police. I don't mind police, but they do not prevent someone breaking into my home, they usually just do report on it after it happens. To me, having gun to protect my home and family is necessity, because I can't really count on public service to do that for me.

But 2nd amendment is not about hunting and protecting home, but about keeping government in check. That's the only think that is standing between all other constitutional rights and tyrannical government. If you think it's not true, just look back in history.

- As to terrorism and constitutional right, it's an objective fact that terrorism does relatively little actual damage in terms of human life. It does of course, do a tremendous amount of damage psychologicaly. And constitutional right goes past 2 things I've noticed. To republicans, constitutional right only seems to apply on guns. It doesn't seem to apply to article 2 of the constitution when it comes to letting a president put forth a supreme court nominee. It doesn't seem to aplly to the first amendment when it comes to religious freedom. When your nominee call on a ban for Muslims entering the country, nore does it apply to the 6th and 14 amendment calling for due process, when a Republican president and congress, puts into effect the patriot act and allows gaumtanamo Bay. So tell me, why is only the second amendment untouchable.

In this rant you're trying to say something important, but it looks more like bowl of spaghetti with ragu sauce, and mozzarella cheese on it - a lot of tangled and unrelated mess.

-I used the Western world, because I don't feel it's fair to compare the US with Uganda, if you think I'm wrong in that so be it.
- As to the race thing, saying gun deaths are a social problem doesn't change anything. If you have social problems having stricter gun laws is not a bad idea in fact it makes it an even better idea.
-Ah the whole i need a gun argument. I have a couple of things to say to that. First of all, I'm personally of the opinion that my TV isn't worth a life. Let's face it someone robbing your house in general just wants your possesions it's very uncommon to get assaulted by a burglar. In most of those cases chances are you are gonna be suprised and unless you sleep with your gun under your pillow ( which would raise questions to your sanity) having a gun won't do shit. What is more common is that you or a member of your family is gonna be involved in an accidental shooting.
-Let's just drop the car argument it's not really nessecary in this discussion.
-If I read your post correctly (feel free to correct me) You feel the second amendment is more important then the others because it gives you the possibility to overthrow the government. Sorry to tell you but personal small arms won't do the trick.
- Sorry you feel my last points where dishinged I'll try to do a btter job. First of all it's relevance lays in the fact that the right is being hypocritical when they stand on their hind legs when the second amendment is under fire.
-Congress refusing to meet with a supreme court nominee clearly goes against, if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the second article of the constitution (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.”
- The same can be said when Trump sais he wants a ban on Muslims entering the country, The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion. Again if not th letter then certainly the spirit.

-Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury
This is clearly violated in Gauntanamo bay. Where people are being held without ever being charged.
-Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Again clearly violated be the patriot act.
Like I pointed out, all of these have, or are being perpetrated by the right. Now I'll ask my question again. Why is only the second amendment worthy of protecting.