Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Canon Shooter]

I'm glad that is working out so well and repeat gun crime is virtually non-existent in the United States. You're such a fucking moron. Did you not read the post where I explained that criminals don't follow the law?

Background checks don't work. Felons get guns anyway. Those who haven't yet been caught buy guns and continue their in-progress crime sprees. Background checks never stopped a single felon from getting a gun in preparation of their next shooting or robbery.

If background checks can keep a sick fuck like you from obtaining a firearm, I'm all for them...

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

How will you confiscate all of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....

They don't have to.
By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).

Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
It won't be long until they are all gone and young people will have gun phobias and not want them.

IOW, over time it will get easier and easier to have people turn them in and besides, ammo, insurance requirements and bullet taxes will make it unaffordable for most anyway.

 

[Concerned American]

insurance requirements and bullet taxes

These are infringements on rights guaranteed by the 2A.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They don't have to.
By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).

Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
It won't be long until they are all gone and young people will have gun phobias and not want them.

IOW, over time it will get easier and easier to have people turn them in and besides, ammo, insurance requirements and bullet taxes will make it unaffordable for most anyway.

I've trained my son's well. Don't count on it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I’ll bet the United States Military could do it.

Not hardly. One the military wouldn’t do it. Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law. Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION. As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Short of a constitutional convention, you can't repeal the 2nd. That is great.

And since most of the states are conservative, the resulting changes would make liberals very unhappy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not hardly. One the military wouldn’t do it. Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law. Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION. As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.

They did in new Orleans during Katrina.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

They don't have to.
By indoctrinating young people, the pro-gun group of Americans will dwindle (regardless of current buying trends).

Right now, the 2nd Amendment is almost entirely supported by old men aged 55+
It won't be long until they are all gone and young people will have gun phobias and not want them.

IOW, over time it will get easier and easier to have people turn them in and besides, ammo, insurance requirements and bullet taxes will make it unaffordable for most anyway.

Those 55+ taught their kids and they in turn will teach their own children the 2nd Amendment has been around for over 230 years it ain't going anywhere.

 

[hadit]

So you want the US military to use force on American citizens?....

The sad thing is, I believe some of them really DO want to see their political opponents riddled with bullets.

 

[Hellbilly]

Not hardly. One the military wouldn’t do it. Using the military for civilian law enforcement violates the law. Two, every member of the military vows to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION. As long as the Second Amendment exists, military members won’t be part of any gun confiscation scheme.

That has nothing to do with my post.

 

[hadit]

It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
Wonder why I thought of that?

Maybe because you have an issue that requires you to draw parallels where they don't exist? Last I checked, guns weren't people.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those 55+ taught their kids and they in turn will teach their own children the 2nd Amendment has been around for over 230 years it ain't going anywhere.

Teach your children the way and they will never be a slave.

 

[Concerned American]

I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War.

How many civil wars do you or that book contend the US has had?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It's interesting that you mention a civil war. I am currently reading a book about the lead up to the first Civil War. The Southern slaveowners were absolutely against giving up their slaves. I guess they felt the same way you feel about giving up your guns.
Wonder why I thought of that?

You want to play that game. People like Mao and Stalin disarmed their citizens and proceeded to murder millions. I guess they felt the same way you do about taking away peoples guns.

 

[Friends]

How will you confiscate all of the guns??? That's the question I haven't heard an answer to... can you give it a try?....

Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.

When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"

 

[Rambunctious]

Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.

When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"

Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...

It is worse then that the anti firearms crowd want to limit and restrict law abiding people from ownership while totally ignoring criminals, Name one law that is enforced against criminals that stops or prevents them from using firearms illegally? Further the Judges and prosecutors in dem cities routinely bargain away all the firearms charges and don't sentence the criminal on them.

 

[hadit]

Few people want to confiscate all the guns, just like few people think Jeff Bezos should earn the same income as someone working at a fast food restaurant.

When considering a gun control law the question should not be, "Is this consistent with the Second Amendment?" but "Will this law reduce the crime rate?"

Actually, the FIRST consideration for EVERY law should be "Is this consistent with the Constitution", because if it's not, it needs to be overturned by the SC.

 

[Friends]

Wrong... the constitution is there to protect you from an over bearing government and its a book of rules the government must follow... if you weaken it for any reason you are harming yourself and infringing on your freedom....
Look at the cities today... the streets are dangerous... to allow anti 2nd amendment activists to win is dangerous....
The government would have a better chance if they did their job and prosecuted criminals to the full extent of the law... and made society safe for all...

An argument I do not accept is that we need the Second Amendment to protect us from the government. That is the argument of criminals and terrorists. As long as the U.S. government remains a democracy I want the government to have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

 

[Friends]

Actually, the FIRST consideration for EVERY law should be "Is this consistent with the Constitution", because if it's not, it needs to be overturned by the SC.

The Constitution and the Constitutional Amendments to not give the Supreme Court the right to overturn popular legislation that has been in effect for a long time.