Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[BackAgain]

Please don’t project your bitchiness. Most others are not whiney bitches like you

The ‘no’ lacks an explanatory context and is anything but concise. You confuse concise with other terms

I’m not. You are. In fact, you’re being such a whiny bitch at the moment, I worry about whether you’re gonna run out of tampons.

The “no,” you dishonest whining bitch, is an answer to the question in your own thread headline. If you don’t like a concise answer to your own question, don’t whine about it after the fact. You stupid bitch. Make smarter thread headlines.

It’s not that difficult. Even a stupid whining bitch on the rag, like you, could do it.

 

[westwall]

Oh the one where over a million Americans died? Did you now!



Well, I do have my degrees in science so that's going to be a problem I guess.

Bullshit. You have no science background at all.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm curious why a gun registry is so onerous

You're exactly why the second amendment exists. BTW, there is no amendment guaranteeing the right to purchase sudafed. Blame the democrats.

 

[Abatis]

You’re a bit confused here. The amendment protects the right — without it things change

All the 2ndA "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Read Federalist 84.

Would USA need a new amendment? Not at all.

The right to arms in no manner depends on the Constitution; it is a retained right with no aspect of the right ever conferred to the care and control of the federal government (unalienable).

The government would need a new amendment granting new powers to allow the federal government to impact the personal arms of the private citizen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why shouldn’t it?

Because Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving.

The Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions just 12 years ago.

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause was incorporated during the late 19th Century; the First Amendment was incorporated nearly 100 years ago.

It’s ridiculous to repeal an Amendment with so little case law, an Amendment whose scope governments and the courts have just begun to explore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The gang is all here now. Losers and bullies who travel the threads in packs and contribute nothing

Yep.

Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.

Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.

 

[scruffy]

I understand you don't like it when science finds results that don't make you happy, but sadly it is a part of life.

If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH! It would be good to see it.

You simply fail to understand.

No one cares about your statistics

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?

This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?



Can you control yourselves and hold back the political and personal attacks on the OP?

Stevens, J., Dissenting: The Legacy of Heller

This article focuses on the late Justice Stevens's opinions and commentary on the Second Amendment, demonstrating his approach to law and judging.

judicature.duke.edu

Yea ...still No

 

[scruffy]

Yep.

Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.

Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.

All I'm going to tell you is, you'll never take my weapons. Period. That's all there is to say

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[scruffy]

Either way you are losing your guns.

The chances of that are slim to none.

And Slim left town.

 

[scruffy]

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns;

Bullshit.

Beto does, he said so himself.

guns are not going to be ‘taken.’

This part you got right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Could we, should we, get rid of tbe 2nd Amendment?

This thread is not about me personally favoring, and advocating the banning all gun ownership. I have had a permit (recent), to carry concealed. Though banning all ownership of weapons or restricting ownership is part of the question(s). Constitutionally, don’t we have every right to repeal amendments?



Can you control yourselves and hold back the political and personal attacks on the OP?

Stevens, J., Dissenting: The Legacy of Heller

This article focuses on the late Justice Stevens's opinions and commentary on the Second Amendment, demonstrating his approach to law and judging.

judicature.duke.edu

Repeal the second amendment shrugs
Now how are you getting guns from the American subjects?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

View attachment 651222

Sure.....................listen to this mental case, a kid in 2nd grade could do better.



Then the retard celebrates.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure.....................listen to this mental case, a kid in 2nd grade could do better.



Then the retard celebrates.

You can't be triggered without a Trump

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep.

Again, conservatives are cowards who lack the courage and capacity to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning the Second Amendment.

Conservatives invariably resort to fearmongering, ridiculous sophistry, and lies.

Lookie here the professional liar chimes in.

 

[Blues Man]

Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.

But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself. Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun? Shouldn't be. If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.



Agreed.



Disagree. This isn't a wild west movie.

Studies show that people with pools have a greater risk of drowning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Studies show that people with pools have a greater risk of drowning.

You have a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver than being killed with a rifle.

 

[Ringtone]

I’m not. You are. In fact, you’re being such a whiny bitch at the moment, I worry about whether you’re gonna run out of tampons.

The “no,” you dishonest whining bitch, is an answer to the question in your own thread headline. If you don’t like a concise answer to your own question, don’t whine about it after the fact. You stupid bitch. Make smarter thread headlines.

It’s not that difficult. Even a stupid whining bitch on the rag, like you, could do it.

Hey, BackAgain, I see that you're still yammering that I'm a vainglorious and tragically stupid tool who can't admit when he's wrong in your signature.

You forgot to mention the fact that your allegation stems from your mindless, pseudo-scientific notion that the laws of thermodynamics would necessarily obtain beyond the physical universe, that God, therefore, could not have created the universe and the laws of physics that govern it in the first place because . . . wait for it . . . the law of conservation would prohibit that.



You may have me on ignore, but everybody else will see the absurdity on which your allegation is predicated. I think I'll repost this under your posts from time to time.

 

[Ringtone]

At least Justice Stevens, for all his constitutional taffy-pulling, finally came to the realization that to enact the gun laws he and other liberals want, the Constitution would need to be altered.

It is a bit unclear how rescinding the 2ndA would get us to that goal since the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 146 years, that the right to arms is not granted by the 2ndA, thus the RKBA in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

Next problem, where are you going to find the 38+ states required to ratify a new federal amendment, surrendering the rights of their citizens to complete federal control?

Correct!

The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments entail rights that are inherent and, therefore, absolutely unbridgeable. These rights preexist per the imperatives of natural law. They cannot be granted, taken away, or transferred by the state. Their natural expressions and exercises can only be illegitimately suppressed by the state. There is no assertion whatsoever in the language of their enumeration that the ratification of the Constitution, let alone congressional decree, granted them. In other words, the language of their enumeration, including that of the Fourth and Fifth in terms of their essence, assumes their prior existence. The duly administered warrants of probable cause and the duly administered deprivations of due process per criminality do not violate them.

This is not to say that the other rights are not inherent in some sense. Rather, like certain aspects of the Fourth and Fifth, they are rooted in the others and require additional explanation or specification.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that one may say or do whatever one bloody damn well pleases, which routinely confuses the stupid. Rather, there is no natural right to violate the life, liberty, or the property of another in the first place.

Moreover, the suspensions of free expression and exercise vis-a-vis crises strictly go to the wellbeing of the body politic of the social contract.

Regarding their preexistent nature, the above is most especially true about the language of the First and Second. Observe:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.​

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.​

The plain language of the Second Amendment's main clause, as the Federalist Papers evince and the Court has affirmed, firstly pertains to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are predicated on the imperatives of natural law regarding the inalienable rights of the people endowed by God (or nature if you please), not by governments. This inherent right of the people precedes the security of the several states, just as the militias of the several states precede the existence of Congress. It's important to keep in mind that under natural and constitutional law the right to keep and bear arms and the existence of the Militia are ontologically rooted in the people themselves.