What would you do with the second amendment?

[sartre play]

Let's get to the end game. What should the Constitution say, if anything, about guns and what power should the Federal government have to regulate them?

legislate every able bodied 18 yr old to solicit a state militia & receive proper firearms training

those that opt to serve in said militia receive college incentives

~S~

It sounds like you're trying to be funny somehow, but it just sounds like you're stupid

The Swiss model would do perfectly fine here Kaz

there would then be no argument about 'militia', as we'd be walkin' the walk

there'd also be no need for state guards, lot of $$ saved

and i suspect the AL's & VFW's would be repurposed ,with new members

win / win for everyone

~S~

IF you read all the restrictions the Swiss require you may change your mind. Americans in general are pro gun but want fewer but better gun laws.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would tell your beloved deep state to **** off...

But the left, and at least one loony ex-military that we both know on this board, seems to THINK (i use the word loosely), that our Soldiers swear an Oath to the Government when they actually swear an Oath to the Constitution. Have you noticed how they are trying to change that fact. At first it was subtle, now it's gone full bore.

Just waiting for Duhryl to accuse me (for the 10th time) of Treason for stating the obvious!

I swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States America. You seem to have sworn and oath to destroying it. I can live with that. In the end, can you?

The federal government and the constitution are not even close to the same thing, **** the federal government.
In fact they are on opposing sides...

If the Federal Government is opposing the constitution then why haven't you fought to take them to court to force them to comply with the constitution? Under the constitution, it's your right to do so. And why haven't you put all your assets into getting candidates who will follow the Constitution? To date, the only thing the Congress follows is the corporate greed money. They don't even write their own bills. Corporations do that for them Hell, the Congress Critters don't even read the bills. I will freely admit that the Federal Government is broken and needs fixed. But where is your support to do this. Posting in here certainly isn't part of that support. It's a distraction at best.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you have to ask (and you don't) how are you different than ISIS.

Now you are talking nonsense.

 

[sparky]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment, they would tell your beloved deep state to **** off...

But the left, and at least one loony ex-military that we both know on this board, seems to THINK (i use the word loosely), that our Soldiers swear an Oath to the Government when they actually swear an Oath to the Constitution. Have you noticed how they are trying to change that fact. At first it was subtle, now it's gone full bore.

Just waiting for Duhryl to accuse me (for the 10th time) of Treason for stating the obvious!

I swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States America. You seem to have sworn and oath to destroying it. I can live with that. In the end, can you?

The federal government and the constitution are not even close to the same thing, **** the federal government.
In fact they are on opposing sides...

If the Federal Government is opposing the constitution then why haven't you fought to take them to court to force them to comply with the constitution? Under the constitution, it's your right to do so. And why haven't you put all your assets into getting candidates who will follow the Constitution? To date, the only thing the Congress follows is the corporate greed money. They don't even write their own bills. Corporations do that for them Hell, the Congress Critters don't even read the bills. I will freely admit that the Federal Government is broken and needs fixed. But where is your support to do this. Posting in here certainly isn't part of that support. It's a distraction at best.

Well i suspect the federal gub'mit thinks they ARE the constitution

You may have hit nail to head there Daryl

~S~

 

[danielpalos]

it means, since the unorganized militia is Not expressly declared Necessary, is perforce subject to the police power.

And, where does it say that?

Our Second Amendment; Only that which is Necessary, may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Amendment; Only that which is Necessary, may not be Infringed, when it really really matters.

Bullshit. It clearly says that I get machine guns and grenade launchers. You need to read it again.

 

[Markle]

Let's say we do. Who is going to pay for it. Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain. Are you going to have armed guards with watch towers? Will they look like Prisons? Are you willing to have your pay taxed to pay for this? It's going to be very expensive.

Or are you going to help find other solutions.

WOW, a Progressive asking how we're going to pay for something. Let's CELEBRATE! CELEBRATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!

But it is for the children, right? Do our airports have watchtowers? Do our airports look like prisons?

It would seem that schools in Israel would be a prime target for paid terrorists from Palestine. Yet, they have not been attacked in many years. How about this?


February 25, 2013
2013-R-0119

SCHOOL SECURITY IN ISRAEL
By: Michael Csere, Legislative Fellow

You asked what steps Israel has taken to protect its public schools and university students from terrorist attacks and gun violence.

SUMMARY

Our research indicates that Israel has taken a number of steps to protect schools and students from terrorist attacks and gun violence, with a greater emphasis on the former.

Israeli law currently requires a guard in schools of 100 or more students. These guards are generally employed by private security companies, while the Israel Police (the country's civilian police force) have overall responsibility for guidance, oversight, and control for the entire security system of educational institutions, from kindergartens through universities. The law permits certain individuals to carry firearms in schools.

There has been considerable controversy over the law's funding and implementation, including criticism of the expertise and capability of the guards. While not required to have them, some schools, notably smaller ones, have experienced difficulty funding security guards.

Additionally, the Israeli Ministry of Education has provided funding to (1) construct shelters and fences, (2) add reinforced protection to school buses, (3) hire and train security guards, and (4) provide professional psychological care to treat students' emotional reactions to terrorist attacks. Armed security guards sometimes accompany students on field trips, although it is unclear whether this is currently mandated or how frequently it occurs.

The Ministry has also collaborated with the Israel Police to provide security awareness training for elementary-age students. And at least one high school has adopted its own security protocols.

SCHOOL SECURITY IN ISRAEL

Each school district should propose their own plan for making their schools a hard target, submitted to the state for approval.

Doing the same thing, over and over expecting a different result is the definition of what? That is what you and the other gun haters always reach for in desperation. BAN THE GUNS!

 

[Markle]

I can see you haven't handled one or the other. The Mini-14 is downright cumbersome in comparison. There are some stark differences that makes the Mini-14 NOT the weapon of choice.

Nice try. Yes, I've handled both, along with REAL assault weapons. how is the Mini-14 cumbersome? Your only true complaint is that the AR-15 LOOKS more dangerous. I bet you'd hate it if I passed you on my bike with the loud pipes too.

 

[Markle]

You are posting made up memes. Here is one from the UN.

Nothing made up, strictly fact for which I provided two sources.

MY post was for ALL VIOLENT CRIME, not just homicide. If all else fails, read the instructions.

 

[Markle]

None of those things are designed with the express purpose of killing people and then marketed to unstable people with anger control issues.

Guns are.

Please be specific in demonstrating to us that the gun industry MARKETS guns to unstable people. Millions of people are unstable. Under certain, specific circumstances, I say we are all unstable at some point and have an anger control issue.

Please show us where any of these recent shooting incidents have been committed by someone in a sudden rage. I won't be holding my breath as wait for a real answer.

 

[sparky]

Millions of people are unstable. Under certain, specific circumstances, I say we are all unstable at some point and have an anger control issue.

I find mowtown helps...~S~

 

[sparky]

DANCE TO THE MUSIC

~S~

 

[Pop23]

But the left, and at least one loony ex-military that we both know on this board, seems to THINK (i use the word loosely), that our Soldiers swear an Oath to the Government when they actually swear an Oath to the Constitution. Have you noticed how they are trying to change that fact. At first it was subtle, now it's gone full bore.

Just waiting for Duhryl to accuse me (for the 10th time) of Treason for stating the obvious!

I swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States America. You seem to have sworn and oath to destroying it. I can live with that. In the end, can you?

Hey Duh-rle have you found that post yet?

I’ve been waiting for the DOJ to come a knockin. I even bought beer!

I don't have to find it. Another one will come along any time now. Something will trigger you. It always does. And I don't need to be doing this over and over again. You think that people forget things over time if you hammer them over and over with this type of nonsense. Well, you are partially correct. But you just can't help yourself. We'll just wait for another stage to come and find you riding under it.

Dude, nobody trusts you anyway. You probably lie to yourself.

Wow, the 7 year old method of winning an argument. "Nobody Likes You" as said by every bully that ever lived.

What a flippin moron. You have zero honor. When you said I wrote something that is punishable by the Death Penalty. Then refuse to produce the evidence, then you are dishonorable.

No one gives a shit what someone who would accuse another of such a serious crime, but can’t produce the evidence, thinks.

You are just a fraud if you think I believe for a second you were ever in the United States Military, you are simply fucked in the head



They are Men of Honor. You are not.

FACT

 

[Markle]

So easy to find. Here is the oath I took.

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)
The military oath of enlistment (re-enlistment) is below and read and repeated usually by a member of your chain of command.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

 

[kaz]

Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

 

[Markle]

DANCE TO THE MUSIC

~S~

One of my favorites and why I chose that phrase. Thank you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Feds would take days to form up. The State Guards would from up within hours. The Texas State Guard could field at least 75,000 in a matter of hours and have them in place. Depending on the situtation, the News Groups might side with the State making it very uncomfortable for the Feds. But about the only way this could happen would be if a State were to try and leave the union and this would leave the Feds no choice but to put the attempt down. The Governor would be arrested as would much of his entire cabinet and the state congress. At that point, in a matter of day, that 75,000 wouldn't be much of an obstacle.

The federal military would never go against their own folk, They would tell the bureaucrats to **** off

You know nothing about the Military Tradition, Culture, UCMJ, Oath that makes up the Military. If a state tries to break free and votes to do so, the entire State Government becomes enemies of the United States. And in the Oath that each and every service member has taken, they are to protect the Nation against enemies of the United States of America both Foreign and Domestic. I took that oath 5 times as many other did as well. In fact, every Military Person that ever served took the same exact oath. The US Congress would be well within their powers to send in the United States Military to Arrest the offending State Government to be held for trial by the Civilian Courts. And if it got bloody, the Federal Military would win that battle. You over estimate the support that your bunch of traitors would receive even in your own state. So far, two states have recently tried to vote to secede and both times the vote has failed. Even if it was successful, the Supreme Court would render the vote null and void. So it would boil down that it would either have to be forgotten about or it would have to be done using lethal force with your little bunch of traitors have no chance of winning.

Once more, you are trying to incite traitorous acts against the United States of America. You are no better than the pseudo Patriot idiot.

Not this shit again? He pulled the “you committed treason” shit on me on another thread. When asked to provide the link to my quote he cried like a stuck pig.

Paranoia runs deep in this one.

And you were doing the same rant. It's inciting treason, there cupcake. It's bordering on a Criminal Act. It's one step away from a criminal act. If any group were to follow up on those "Suggestions" then it would be a criminal act. Luckily, there aren't too many armed large group of nutcases that are willing to die to prove the points.

There are 3 of you that go about trying to incite an armed revolution. And the last time I checked, an armed revolution was Criminal. And THAT will get your guns seized for life. As well as a very long stay on the Feds and a new wife named Bubba.

It's the us government that has ignored the constitution. It is not legitimate and needs to be removed

I suggest you look back at 1861. It was already tried and failed.

Cool. Now answer the question, "So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?"

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

No, you're a subjugated believer. None of that said states can be forced to remain in the union. That's clearly not consent of the governed, the basis of the constitution

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

The Federal government is not ‘ignoring’ the Constitution as long as it acts in accordance with the Founding Document’s case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And when government acts contrary to the Constitution, it’s the responsibility of the people to oppose such acts through either the political process or the judicial process by seeking relief in Federal court.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until invalidated by the Supreme Court, in deference to the will of the people.

It is LITERALLY the exact opposite. An invalid law is invalid from the moment it is signed into law.

 

[Issa]

Australians along with the rest of the world are laughing at your stupidity.

Laughing at us?

They can't even get a damn pea shooter. Who is laughing at whom?

You should go live there and get the **** out. It's too dangerous here.

They have a better living standards, highest minimum wage, safer than the US, universal health care and the list goes on.
No, i'm good i'm with the 15% and i live in a area....I can't say that about most of Americans that i care about, that you don't give a damn about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would? The Constitution is a document of specific enumerated Federal powers, and by the 9th and 10th amendments the rest are denied to the Federal government.

So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?

Also, our government was founded on John Locke's principles of consent of the governed. Obviously if a State is forced to remain in the Union, there is no legitimacy of Federal government since the people did not consent

I suggest you look back at 1861. It was already tried and failed.

Cool. Now answer the question, "So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?"

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.