Bottom line question...

[BlindBoo]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

 

[zeke]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

How many? Are there enough to beat the US Army? How about my local SWAT?
Are you all "planning" your insurrection at this moment? You do know that planning to overthrow our elected government is called "treason". You know what the penalty is for treason? You are just not real smart. Or are you a fantasy warrior? I mean, what the fuk is wrong with you?

You seem to forget that members of the Army are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Elected or not the government is required to abide by the Constitution and failure to do so is criminal and a fine example of treason in itself.

You really are a comic book character. Now you propose mutiny in the Armed services.

I thought you were in the military? And you think young men and women are prepared to ignore lawful orders from their commanders? Whoa dude. You are out there. Double down on stupid if you can. What's next? Killing politicians you don't like?

 

[rightwinger]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

I'm not sure what you are driving at

Americans willing to kill or die to keep our Constitutional rights seems to describe our current military forces. To be perfectly honest, our military hasn't fought a war to defend our Constitutional rights in 150 years. It has been that long since defending our rights has required military action and that was a Civil War

 

[Seawytch]

What stage of preparedness are you at soldier? You ready to mobilize?

Got your "survival seeds"? (we call them...well, seeds)

 

[9thIDdoc]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

 

[BlindBoo]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

 

[FJO]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

Why are you so obsessed with killing people?

Or you think that would ever do any good.

Our constitutional rights are what people think they are in the collective.

There are no "rights". A right implies that it can't be taken away, when in fact they can.

We don't have rights, we have privilages the rest of society allows us to have.

Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942." Guess what, they took away every right these folks had, and everyone cheered it at the time.

and somehow, I don't think the Japanese-Americans would have made anything better for themselves if they took up arms against the government at that point.

And that great act of humanity was done by none other than Democrat icon, Uncle-Joe's-ass-kissing, chain-smoking mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

[rightwinger]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

Why are you so obsessed with killing people?

Or you think that would ever do any good.

Our constitutional rights are what people think they are in the collective.

There are no "rights". A right implies that it can't be taken away, when in fact they can.

We don't have rights, we have privilages the rest of society allows us to have.

Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942." Guess what, they took away every right these folks had, and everyone cheered it at the time.

and somehow, I don't think the Japanese-Americans would have made anything better for themselves if they took up arms against the government at that point.

And that great act of humanity was done by none other than Democrat icon, Uncle-Joe's-ass-kissing, chain-smoking mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yup......FDR signed off on that one

And the American people cheered, Republicans congratulated him and the United States Supreme Court had no problems with it

A sign of post Pearl Harbor Hysteria

 

[konradv]

I see lots of silly BS but no attempt to answer the question.

That's because the question was silly BS. There's no telling which side of the question you're on. Just because you think you're on one side, doesn't mean we have to trust that that's the truth. Just like when someone says that they're hoarding guns as protection against the government, doesn't mean they're not the ones from whom the public needs to be protected. You begged the question in the OP of who's really the one that's out to destroy the Constitution by positing the assumption the answer is, "not me". I really can't say that that's the case.

 

[yidnar]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

Why are you so obsessed with killing people?

Or you think that would ever do any good.

Our constitutional rights are what people think they are in the collective.

There are no "rights". A right implies that it can't be taken away, when in fact they can.

We don't have rights, we have privilages the rest of society allows us to have.

Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942." Guess what, they took away every right these folks had, and everyone cheered it at the time.

and somehow, I don't think the Japanese-Americans would have made anything better for themselves if they took up arms against the government at that point.

yeah and it was a fat left wing bastard that violated their rights.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I see lots of silly BS but no attempt to answer the question.

Bullshit answers for a bullshit question?

I don't really see a problem here.​

 

[FJO]

Why are you so obsessed with killing people?

Or you think that would ever do any good.

Our constitutional rights are what people think they are in the collective.

There are no "rights". A right implies that it can't be taken away, when in fact they can.

We don't have rights, we have privilages the rest of society allows us to have.

Any fool who thinks he has rights should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942." Guess what, they took away every right these folks had, and everyone cheered it at the time.

and somehow, I don't think the Japanese-Americans would have made anything better for themselves if they took up arms against the government at that point.

And that great act of humanity was done by none other than Democrat icon, Uncle-Joe's-ass-kissing, chain-smoking mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yup......FDR signed off on that one

And the American people cheered, Republicans congratulated him and the United States Supreme Court had no problems with it

A sign of post Pearl Harbor Hysteria

If George W. Bush had signed a similar order/law regarding American Muslims,after 9/11, the population would have cheered, the Democrats would have congratulated him and the Supreme Court would have found no problem with it.

But Bush did not.

Difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

 

[yidnar]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

and when they started locking up black people that have committed no crime besides owning an unregistered fire arm because they live in a rough neighborhood you will be one of the first to scream foul and racism !! be careful what you wish for libb!!

 

[Katzndogz]

Oh please, what nonsense. A rebellion, even a small one, by 50% of the people in the nation and it will fall. It doesn't even have to be a big one with guns and blood in the streets. It can be a small rebellion carried out by millions of people. The country won't have the military. It won't even have that local SWAT team. Those agencies are as divided as the general population. How many police are refusing to enforce gun control laws? How many sheriff's offices? You got the police. That's a joke. You got what you got, and what you don't have is a majority of the people behind you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hence my question.

 

[BlindBoo]

There are many Americans willing to kill and/or die to keep our Constitutional rights and pass them on to new generations.

Are you willing to kill and/or die to take them?

No. I would support a Consitutional Amendment refining the 2nd to include a national registration database of all weapons and background checks, ect. I seriously doubt that it would pass but in the unlikely even that enough states ratified it, would you still be willing to resort to deadly violence to oppose it?

and when they started locking up black people that have committed no crime besides owning an unregistered fire arm because they live in a rough neighborhood you will be one of the first to scream foul and racism !! be careful what you wish for libb!!

Does that mean you would or would not resort to violence if the 2nd Amendment was modified by a Constitutional Amendment?

 

[BlindBoo]

Changing the Constitution in the method prescribed by the Constitution is, by definition, Constitutional. Attempting to change it by any other method is not. By Presidential fiat for example.

The Presidents' power of Executive Orders can only be used to carry out existing laws. If you lived in a state like Conn would you be willing to resort to violence to oppose the new stricter legislation? What if, and I do mean if, Congress passed such measures, would you resort to violence then?

I do not think that such laws are Constitutional failing a Constitutional amendment. I believe that the USSC will strike such laws down. If I lived in Ca. New York, or Conn. I would move elsewhere. On a Federal level I would expect things to get nasty pretty quickly-probably before the USSC could rule-if any confiscation were involved. I would not meekly turn over or register my weapons in any case. I think most of the "...cold dead hands folks" mean exactly that.

I read that they are "confiscating" (stealing) the weapons of people based on the fact that they have had prescriptions for anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications at one time or another in New York. I think such foolishness on a National level would start a Civil war. Hench my question.

And in the event the SC doesn't strike it down?

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional - Taking Liberties - CBS News

I believe only one side of that story has been published on a pro gun site so far. I'll wait until more facts are known about the case. In any case I don't believe a mere prescrition should be used as cause for confiscating someones guns.

 

[rightwinger]

And that great act of humanity was done by none other than Democrat icon, Uncle-Joe's-ass-kissing, chain-smoking mental and physical cripple, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yup......FDR signed off on that one

And the American people cheered, Republicans congratulated him and the United States Supreme Court had no problems with it

A sign of post Pearl Harbor Hysteria

If George W. Bush had signed a similar order/law regarding American Muslims,after 9/11, the population would have cheered, the Democrats would have congratulated him and the Supreme Court would have found no problem with it.

But Bush did not.

Difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

America learned a lesson in 1942 and there is no way we would have tolerated such treatment

But thanks for the fantasy anyway

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why do libs constantly say "they don't want to take your guns" When it's obvious they do?

 

[konradv]

Why do libs constantly say "they don't want to take your guns" When it's obvious they do?

Why do cons say they're not racist, when it's obvious they are? Could it be that both arguments are examples of the Fallacy of Sweeping Generalization?