Man Up Democrats: Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Good job editing your post after I've already begun responding.

I edited at 4:41, you posted at 4:44. You know anyone can check that by looking at the bottom of each post correct?

However, I'm glad you agree that the Second Amendmet is being violated.

The reason that you've never seen an armed revolt in the United States (on a national scale), is because the Federal Government has NEVER attacked the entire Bill of rights at the SAME time. This will change if they continue to do so, and you will see and armed revolt. The video demonstrates that Americans will revolt when they oppressed enough. It is also arguable that blacks would have righteously revolted many times in our past had the KKK Democrats not disarmed them to impose Jim Crow laws and other tyrannical acts.

----------
Let's list every right (including those not in the Bill of Rights) that are under attack:

Habaes Corpus: Can only be suspended during times of Rebellion or INVASION (not war). We are not being invaded.

Freedom of Speech - Occupy Wall Street Organizers and Activists declared terrorists (I'm one of them), youtube censorship
Freedom of Press - Federal Government has been censoring google searches, corporate controlled media (corporations are the government)
Freedom of Assembly - Occupy Wall Street brutalities, god forbid anyone demonstrates against the Federal Reserve (the true government)
Freedom of Religion - Republicans are trying to impose their abortion views on us, in order to obtain BOUNDARIES AND LIMITATIONS on the 1st Amendment to apply to Speech, Press and Assembly.

Right to Bear Arms - No need to discuss this

Third Amendment - Agents of the government (drones) are hovering over our skies (quartering) for indefinite periods of time (tenancy) WITHOUT our CONSENT.

Fourth Amendment - Selectively suspended by law enforcement, Patriot Act is a good example (President Bush and Oil Czar Cheney)

All due process amendments - NDAA (President Obama)

Ninth Amendment - Corporate think tanks have trivialized this Amendment. The Amendment is a statement saying "All men are Endowed with Natural Rights, the government DOES NOT permit rights, Government is only a necessary evil that can deny or disparage your NATURAL RIGHTS." However, corporate America is brain washing people into thinking that the Government creates and permits rights. Such a a system is called "privileges" not "rights." Corporate America would like to create a government based on privileged, not rights. The Ninth Amendment is perhaps the MOST important of all the Amendments; it is the entire philosophical foundation of our Constitution.

Tenth Amendment - Shit on by the 17th Amendment (changed the system of choosing Senators, destroying the only bulwark that the States had against the Federal Government, coincidentally (not), it was also passed in the same year as the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act, which surrendered national sovereignty to the International Banks. So in one year (1913) we lost National and State Sovereignty to the international banks.

Article 3, Section 3, Treason and due process - Shit on by the NDAA and Patriot Act combined.

There's no need to list what the government does, I know. I just don't believe the Constitution is a useful tool in trying to limit the government. Lysander Spooner had the measure of the Constitution in the 1800's when he said:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

As to your point regarding there being an armed revolt if the government attacks the Bill of Rights at the same time, the entire Bill of Rights has been under attack since the very beginning basically. The politicians are simply smart enough to do these things gradually, or, if they are extreme, such as the case of imprisoning Japanese-Americans in WW2, they make it an issue of security pandering to people's fear.

So sure, if they outright tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment they'd have an issue and it would never happen. But they don't need to. Just pass a couple regulations here, a couple regulations there, which are in and of themselves unconstitutional, of course, and sooner than you know it the 2nd Amendment is powerless and the people none the wiser.

 

[EriktheRed]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

I agree.
Try to repeal the 2nd -- you -know- you want to.

You guys are pathetic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need to repeal it. Well regulated is already in it. That's enough.

Well regulated relates to the milita, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and said regulations may not infringe on that right.
You know that, right?

 

[martybegan]

simply defining Arms is sufficient - all public firearms must be lever or bolt action per round and with non detachable magazines ...

Unconsitutional, as this is infringment at its most basic level.

 

[martybegan]

No need to repeal it. Well regulated is already in it. That's enough.

The milita, when called is to be regulated, which means properly run and led.

The PEOPLE, however retain to have the right to keep and bear arms, with no infringement.

Its not the People's fault the states no longer muster the unorganized milita from time to time. it has no impact on the PEOPLE's right to arms.

 

[bodecea]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Why would we want to do that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

I agree.
Try to repeal the 2nd -- you -know- you want to.

You guys are pathetic.

Your reply is ineffectual and non-responsive.

 

[M14 Shooter]

simply defining Arms is sufficient - all public firearms must be lever or bolt action per round and with non detachable magazines ...

"Arms" has already been defined by the court; unfortunately for your position, its definition is far broader.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

simply defining Arms is sufficient - all public firearms must be lever or bolt action per round and with non detachable magazines ...

"Arms" has already been defined by the court; unfortunately for your position, its definition is far broader.

Before I go to bed M14, check out this thread I made on the Ninth Amendment, it sums up the major philosophical schism between most people in America today (regardless of party).

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/284548-the-ninth-amendment-and-dianne-feinstein.html

In fact, if I was thinking about buying my tombstone, its message would be about the Ninth Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Can any of you assholes even name one person who has advocated for repealing the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Democrats try to equivocate the Constitution away. They lack the moxie and clout to do anything else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Conservatives first.

Otherwise, why would democrats wish to repeal an Amendment they fully support?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Otherwise, why would democrats wish to repeal an Amendment they fully support?

Definition of infringe, according to the merriam webster dictionary:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

Democrats has an issue with the "Shall not be infringed" clause. They should repeal that part of the 2nd Amendment before infringing upon it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

Actually, it’s the Constitution’s case law that must be obeyed, as interpreted by the courts, and ignored by libertarians and many on the right.

And there are many examples of Constitutional case law that’s violated or ignored by conservatives:

The right to privacy with regard to contraception and abortion.

The right to due process by undocumented immigrants.

The right to equal protection of the law by same-sex couples.

To name but a few…

 

[Crackerjaxon]

In the United States, we have this object called the Constitution. It is Fundamental Law, and triumphs over Common Law. The Constitution must be obeyed and politicians have taken and oath to boy and defend it.

If you find the 2nd Amendment to be a hindrance, do not pass laws that infringe upon it, and create a selective atmosphere about which Constitutional provisions you will follow. This will lead to Lawlessness.

If you find certain provisions or implications of the 2nd Amendment (such as "shall not be infringed"), then you must first Repeal or Alter the 2nd Amendment under Article V of the Constitution.

By all means, proceed with trying to repeal or alter the 2nd Amendment via Article V. Until then, you must obey the Constitution.

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

Actually, it’s the Constitution’s case law that must be obeyed, as interpreted by the courts, and ignored by libertarians and many on the right.

And there are many examples of Constitutional case law that’s violated or ignored by conservatives:

The right to privacy with regard to contraception and abortion.

The right to due process by undocumented immigrants.

The right to equal protection of the law by same-sex couples.

To name but a few…

Nonsense. More equivocation. The Consitution is the supreme law aof the land, not some jerkwater judge.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Otherwise, why would democrats wish to repeal an Amendment they fully support?

Definition of infringe, according to the merriam webster dictionary:

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

Democrats has an issue with the "Shall not be infringed" clause. They should repeal that part of the 2nd Amendment before infringing upon it.

Cite any liberal or democrat, acknowledged as the official spokesperson for all liberals and democrats, authorized by all liberals and democrats to make sanctioned policy, who advocates repealing the Second Amendment.

Absent that you succeed in only exhibiting your ignorance.

Liberals and democrats, for the most part, accept Heller/McDonald as settled and accepted case law.

And that case law authorizes regulatory measures with regard to firearms.

To seek a given regulatory measure doesn’t manifest an ‘infringement’ until such time as a court rules it does.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or what? I've never yet seen any consequences for politicians violating the Constitution.

Actually, it’s the Constitution’s case law that must be obeyed, as interpreted by the courts, and ignored by libertarians and many on the right.

And there are many examples of Constitutional case law that’s violated or ignored by conservatives:

The right to privacy with regard to contraception and abortion.

The right to due process by undocumented immigrants.

The right to equal protection of the law by same-sex couples.

To name but a few…

Nonsense. More equivocation. The Consitution is the supreme law aof the land, not some jerkwater judge.

Rulings by the Supreme Court are not ‘nonsense’ or ‘equivocation.’

The Constitution and its case law are indeed the supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the courts, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.

In fact, the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law; one is entitled to disagree with a given ruling, and have his own opinion as to the meaning of the Constitution, however subjective and ignorant – but one is not entitled to his own ‘facts’ with regard to the Constitution and the meaning of its case law.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am not sure why the op is so paranoid and why he makes so many topics about this, he does know that many democrats own guns along with some voting republicans, as gun owners and also supporters of across the board common sense gun laws. I can only figure they are the ones that already illegaly own guns per the 1968 gun control act and dont want to be found out about.

 

[Lakhota]

There's no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. State and federal courts and legislatures are chipping away at it - much the same way that righties are chipping away at Roe v. Wade and abortion rights.