It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment

[Lakhota]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing.

Only to the confused among us.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Eventually, the 2nd Amendment will be reinterpreted/updated to meet 21st century realities. It's long overdue.

Too funny.

In terms of constitutional limits on government, no interpretation will be permitted or accepted.

 

[Rustic]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing.

...to a tortured soul

 

[petro]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing.

A quick paste for the idiots.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often times bitter 1787–1788 battle over ratification of the Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add certain safeguards of democracy—specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights; clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings; and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people—to the Constitution.

What part of personal freedoms and rights are so confusing? You really need to brush up on your understanding of the Constitution. Only a simpleton couldn't understand that the Bill of rights are reserved for the people and states meant to protect us from an over-reaching Fed. You seem to have no problem using the First Amendment to spout garbage and outright lies. The 2nd Amendment actually protects your right to be a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The 2nd Amendment is confusing.

I'll bet you find a lot of things confusing.

 

[petro]

What's really funny Lakhota is your extreme ignorance and the fact that you can't refute the arguments presented to you in any intelligent manner. The multiple threads with simpleminded one liners only show ignorance. how pitiful.

 

[OKTexas]

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

End the Gun Epidemic in America - The New York Times Editorial Board

I would put closing loopholes and universal background checks ahead of banning assault weapons. Followed by accurate and timely information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I would also limit magazine capacities. There is not doubt that the wording of the Second Amendment is peculiar - even confusing.

The faux squaw said:

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment


Yet it started another thread to do exactly that, you lying hypocrite bitch.