Do we need a constitutional convention to remove the second Amendment?

[daveman]

I see you posted your real avi below.

Skipping school today, boy? That'll go on your Permanent Record.

 

[daveman]

I am GOP and you are crazee.

You're a liar.

 

[daveman]

If the enemies of America are daveman, bigrebnc, Unkotare, and the rest of the goofs, then we have nothing to worry about from those posers.

We're not enemies of America. We're enemies of the leftist agenda.

That's why you hate us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are a liar, daveman.

You are an extremist reactionary radical of the far right wing.

 

[daveman]

Yes, you are a liar, daveman.

You are an extremist reactionary radical of the far right wing.

Yes, to someone as far left as you are, I would appear to be a radical, wouldn't I?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are extremely radical, whereas I am right of center, which makes me look very liberal to you.

 

[daveman]

You are extremely radical, whereas I am right of center, which makes me look very liberal to you.

You're a leftist, kid. You're not fooling anyone, even your fellow leftists.

 

[NoNukes]

Republicans and Democrats.

Or do you somehow think Democrats bear no responsibility?

The Democrats were involved in that sham of a vote on it. Who was behind it, liberals? You really avoid questions.

Liberals could have ended it. They chose not to. A liberal -- Obama -- authorized its expansion. He could have ended it. He chose not to.

Still want to pretend that liberals aren't responsible?

You are too chickenshit to answer my question, so I will accept your capitulation.

 

[boedicca]

Not remove but modify.

How? So that only politically connected CRONIES can have guns, such as happens now in NYC, DC and other cities with harsh gun control?

It's not lost on thinking people that the Bright Lights crying out for more gun control have their own body guards.

 

[daveman]

The Democrats were involved in that sham of a vote on it. Who was behind it, liberals? You really avoid questions.

Liberals could have ended it. They chose not to. A liberal -- Obama -- authorized its expansion. He could have ended it. He chose not to.

Still want to pretend that liberals aren't responsible?

You are too chickenshit to answer my question, so I will accept your capitulation.

Really? You can't even admit that Obama -- a liberal -- is responsible for the PA's expansion.

And you call ME chickenshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Second Amendment exists. Therefore, your alleged argument is invalid.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about the principle. Of states rights. Why do guys like you selectively invoke the principle of states rights based on whether or not it suits your agenda?

Why, in PRINCIPLE, shouldn't a specific state be able to ban private ownership of handguns, if that is what the People of that state wanted,

much in the same way a specific state might want to ban all abortion?

btw, a state cannot now ban all abortion because the right to an abortion EXISTS in constitutional law...

My goodness, you're not very bright, are you?

The 10th Amendment says you're full of crap.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.​

But by all means, continue flailing. It's amusing watching you believe you've scored a devastating blow.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

 

[saveliberty]

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

 

[NoNukes]

Liberals could have ended it. They chose not to. A liberal -- Obama -- authorized its expansion. He could have ended it. He chose not to.

Still want to pretend that liberals aren't responsible?

You are too chickenshit to answer my question, so I will accept your capitulation.

Really? You can't even admit that Obama -- a liberal -- is responsible for the PA's expansion.

And you call ME chickenshit.

I said nothing about the expansion, that was not the subject matter.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I HAVE A CONSITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN...The free shitters don't have any right to take tax payer funding to sit on their ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Au contraire, little one, you are not fooling anyone. You are a radical extremist, with no cred here.

What you think is immaterial.

You are extremely radical, whereas I am right of center, which makes me look very liberal to you.

You're a leftist, kid. You're not fooling anyone, even your fellow leftists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

 

[Antares]

I wouldn't lean on Carb too heavily, he can't even distinguish an enumerated Constitutional Right from arecently "discovered right".

Wait...neither can you.

carb has it right, and you are wafflingn.

The states cannot ban all abortion unless and until RvW is overturned.

The 2nd Amendment is binding on states, and SCOTUS interprets that binding.

You've just said exactly nothing.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, in combination with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, makes it unconstitutional for any state to ban all abortion.

The 2nd Amendment makes it unconstitutional for states to ban all gun ownership.

In principle, why do you side with states rights in one case and big central government in the other?

Let's see, you equate a Constitutional clause with an interpretation by the court as equal to an actual amendment that is quite specific and lacks the need for interpretation?

 

[Antares]

LOL, you get caught deflecting and you don't like it.

My point stands, you aren't very bright.

God you are a stupid one.

Your original analogy of abortion and gun rights is idiotic at best. (which is what OUR entire conversation has been about)

Do try and stay wiith the conversation kid.

States rights are a relatively new right recently discovered? What is that supposed to mean?

You're quite well trained in handing out childish insults and quite lacking in adding any substance to the conversation.

Which makes you a perfect fit on the USMB rightwing.

 

[Truthmatters]

abortion has been decided already by the scotus.


so has gun control.

The scotus said we can do that

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL, you get caught deflecting and you don't like it.

My point stands, you aren't very bright.

God you are a stupid one.

Your original analogy of abortion and gun rights is idiotic at best. (which is what OUR entire conversation has been about)

Do try and stay wiith the conversation kid.

You're quite well trained in handing out childish insults and quite lacking in adding any substance to the conversation.

Which makes you a perfect fit on the USMB rightwing.

Nothing I've said have you either proven wrong or even attempted to make a coherent argument to prove wrong.