wow -- former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says: Repeal the Second Amendment

[LordBrownTrout]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

No restrictions?! What universe are you in?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Fuck off, Poseur.

 

[Flash]

The guy is a moron.

Just another example of why we can't trust the government to protect our rights.

 

[meaner gene]

Liberals want to repeal the first and second amendments to the Constitution and eliminate the electoral college.

They really don't want the country to exist at all.

Liberals use the 1st amendment as a crutch. They want to repeal the second because they're more afraid of the big bad guns, then the big bad people.

For the electoral college, it is something whose time has expired. It was like the colt peacemaker, a way of equalizing big and small states.

 

[meaner gene]

Liberals want to repeal the first and second amendments to the Constitution and eliminate the electoral college.

They really don't want the country to exist at all.

Who told you that?

A little more tin foil on his head and he'll stop hearing it,

 

[meaner gene]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Fuck off, Poseur.

I don't trust anybody who needs a gun bigger than a .470 weatherby,.

 

[meaner gene]

The guy is a moron.

Just another example of why we can't trust the government to protect our rights.

Geeze, that's $600 billion a year for the military wasted, If they can't protect us, nothing can,

 

[Lakhota]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Fuck off, Poseur.

I don't trust anybody who needs a gun bigger than a .470 weatherby,.

Do you mean .460 Weatherby Magnum or .470 Nitro Express? Either way, I get your point.

 

[meaner gene]

I don't trust anybody who needs a gun bigger than a .470 weatherby,.

Do you mean .460 Weatherby Magnum or .470 Nitro Express? Either way, I get your point.

What was I thinking. Yes it should have been .460 weatherby. It probably still holds the record for muzzle energy from a regular bolt action, which excludes those double barrel elephant guns. And I don't consider the Barret .50 to be a sporting arm.

 

[Lakhota]

I don't trust anybody who needs a gun bigger than a .470 weatherby,.

Do you mean .460 Weatherby Magnum or .470 Nitro Express? Either way, I get your point.

What was I thinking. Yes it should have been .460 weatherby. It probably still holds the record for muzzle energy from a regular bolt action, which excludes those double barrel elephant guns. And I don't consider the Barret .50 to be a sporting arm.

Thank you. I have a .270 Weatherby Magnum. It's my favorite.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

1. Well regulated militias: The 2nd Amendment afford "all" citizens the right to bear arms so that should a "well regulated citizens militia be needed," they would have their own weapons to provide for that militia.
2. The concept when the 2nd Amendment was enacted, was so that the citizenry would be "similarly" armed against a tyrannical government, including our own, should it become tyrannical. Thus, the weapons like the AR-15, while not fully-automatic, are close to a military rifle and to be kept by the citizens, should our own government, or a foreign government, try to impose its oppressive will upon the people.

 

[boedicca]

It will happen. Once all the racists, rednecks, hillbillies are less.... this country will reach its senses and join the free decelopes world.
In the mean time we will keep hearing.
Workplace shootings
A man shot and killed his entire family
Politicians getting shot
Church shootings
Road rage shootings
Kids as young as 2 gunners down. Etc.....

And in your version of Utopia once you've gotten control, you'll implement the gulags, camps and gas chambers to eliminate the remaining "racists, rednecks, hillbillies...and anyone who disagrees with Dear Leader.

 

[Lakhota]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Amen!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yes, it certainly is "a relic of the 18th century." It's confusing and obsolete. It's actually embarrassing.

Confusing?

 

[jc456]

ya still think they're not comin for your guns?!

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Here's the funny thing: If you repeal the second amendment the federal government still doesn't have the power to outlaw guns.

well there'd be another civil war. quite sure of that. death and destruction it is what the left actually wants. they do want a civil war. They did in the first civil war. they haven't changed a bit them kkk abusers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The first amendment has restrictions. The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias. The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

Fuck off, Poseur.

I don't trust anybody who needs a gun bigger than a .470 weatherby,.

Good for you.. and a big whatever.

 

[jc456]

Yes, it certainly is "a relic of the 18th century." It's confusing and obsolete. It's actually embarrassing.

As I have pointed out several times, there's nothing confusing about the 2nd Amendment. You just want it to say something it doesn't.

she doesn't want america. she could just leave it's easier.

 

[boedicca]

ya still think they're not comin for your guns?!

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Here's the funny thing: If you repeal the second amendment the federal government still doesn't have the power to outlaw guns.

well there'd be another civil war. quite sure of that. death and destruction it is what the left actually wants. they do want a civil war. They did in the first civil war. they haven't changed a bit them kkk abusers.

It's rather cognitively dissonant of them to want a 2nd Civil War considering how badly they lost the first one.

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

 

[Lakhota]

Who on this thread belongs to a "well regulated" militia? That's what the entire 2nd Amendment hinges on. Other than the military - who would regulate a militia? What militia were the founding fathers referring to?

Regarding that pesky “well regulated Militia” in the 2nd amendment, what exactly did it mean?

 

[hunarcy]

Good thing he can’t do fuck all about it.

Who on this thread belongs to a "well regulated" militia? That's what the entire 2nd Amendment hinges on. Other than the military - who would regulate a militia? What militia were the founding fathers referring to?

You focus on the militia, but as it says in your picture, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE