Repeal The Second Amendment

[Hossfly]

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. It ruled that the type of weapon that is available to the public could be regulated by using licenses to determine if the person buying that gun would be a public menace. That is why it takes a special license to own a fully auto .45 Thompson. That rule should extended to all the semi-auto assault rifles. Furthermore, the magazines should be limited to no more than 10 rounds. That would at least slow down the crazy.

Semi-automatic fire is just as deadly as automatic fire. Changing a magazine takes about 3 seconds so having a 10 round magazine is no handicap for the shooter. In three years of Infantry combat I was involved in 4 big battles and many firefights. I never selected automatic fire one time. Each rifle squad has 2 designated automatic rifleman and the rest of the squad can only select semi-automatic fire. Even if there were restrictions on magazine capacity and automatic fire, the crazies would still beat the system.

 

[westwall]

Actually you're wrong, as usual. The SCOTUS has indeed ruled on the usage of these weapons. In US v Miller the Supreme Court ruled that a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because "it had no foreseeable military purpose". You would have a hard time convincing anyone that the AR series of rifles have no military purpose.

 

[Synthaholic]

holic, Which of our rights would you target next? Privacy? Speech? All of them?
Get your hands off of my Rights. The fact that you want to remove freedoms instead of adding to them, means you are to stupid to be making decisions that effect me..

Didn't read the article, eh?

Bret Stephens is a conservative.

I didn't write the article.

A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns.

"A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns"

What are you laughing at? Or are you just not too smart? Bret Stephens explains this in the article.

Which you didn't bother to read.

 

[Synthaholic]

Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.


Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment


I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.


*SNIP*


Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.


*SNIP*


Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.




You should go read the parts I snipped out.

Come get them.

They don't have to come get them, if that was their goal. They could make you bring the guns to them.

 

[westwall]

holic, Which of our rights would you target next? Privacy? Speech? All of them?
Get your hands off of my Rights. The fact that you want to remove freedoms instead of adding to them, means you are to stupid to be making decisions that effect me..

Didn't read the article, eh?

Bret Stephens is a conservative.

I didn't write the article.

A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns.

"A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns"

What are you laughing at? Or are you just not too smart? Bret Stephens explains this in the article.

Which you didn't bother to read.

I did read it and he is flat assed wrong. He is not a conservative, nor has he ever been a conservative. He is an elitist prick. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Synthaholic]

Democrats are certainly welcome to put their next presidential campaign on repealing the second amendment.

A conservative wrote this article, not a Democrat.

Now how many more times will you have to be told this, to get through your alcohol-soaked brain?

 

[westwall]

Democrats are certainly welcome to put their next presidential campaign on repealing the second amendment.

A conservative wrote this article, not a Democrat.

Now how many more times will you have to be told this, to get through your alcohol-soaked brain?

No, a conservative did NOT write this screed. An elitist asshole wrote it. Learn the difference.

 

[Synthaholic]

holic, Which of our rights would you target next? Privacy? Speech? All of them?
Get your hands off of my Rights. The fact that you want to remove freedoms instead of adding to them, means you are to stupid to be making decisions that effect me..

Didn't read the article, eh?

Bret Stephens is a conservative.

I didn't write the article.

A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns.

Anyone who has ever read anything by that clown knows he is an elitist of the first order. That means he could never be a conservative or a liberal either. Elitists are the same as progressive scum. Which you should know.

You Liberals can't help but label everybody, with your identity politics. Disgusting!

 

[Synthaholic]

Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.


Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment


I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.


*SNIP*


Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.


*SNIP*


Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.




You should go read the parts I snipped out.

Keep the 2d Amendment, repeal the 2d Amendment, it really doesn't matter to conservative gun owners. We're gonna keep our guns either way.

If the government decides that you will turn in your guns, you will turn in your guns.

 

[Synthaholic]

The left cannot even convince the victims in these shootings to give up their rights.

Don't worry about that. Run on repealing the 2A, please. Keep telling yourself its a winner.

Well regulated militia ensuring the security of our free States, is our right.

Which well-regulated militia do you belong to, and who is regulating you?

 

[westwall]

holic, Which of our rights would you target next? Privacy? Speech? All of them?
Get your hands off of my Rights. The fact that you want to remove freedoms instead of adding to them, means you are to stupid to be making decisions that effect me..

Didn't read the article, eh?

Bret Stephens is a conservative.

I didn't write the article.

A repeal of the 2nd doesn't mean you can't have guns.

Anyone who has ever read anything by that clown knows he is an elitist of the first order. That means he could never be a conservative or a liberal either. Elitists are the same as progressive scum. Which you should know.

You Liberals can't help but label everybody, with your identity politics. Disgusting!

I find it amusing that you claim to be liberal yet you are a statist through and through. You claim stephens is a "uber" conservative yet the asshole stated that anyone who is a conservative "should admire the elites". What a contemptible swine. I am far more educated than that turd and I don't demand that people admire me for anything. Like I said, that piece of dog shit is as conservative as you are which means he isn't, which means your OP is a lie.

But hey...that's what you do.

 

[Synthaholic]

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder

LIE!

Facts are facts. There are more murders in states with higher gun ownership.

 

[westwall]

The left cannot even convince the victims in these shootings to give up their rights.

Don't worry about that. Run on repealing the 2A, please. Keep telling yourself its a winner.

Well regulated militia ensuring the security of our free States, is our right.

Which well-regulated militia do you belong to, and who is regulating you?

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". It has nothing to do with government control you twit.

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[Synthaholic]

Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". It has nothing to do with government control you twit.

Who is the arbiter of whether it is in good working order?

 

[impuretrash]

Democrats are certainly welcome to put their next presidential campaign on repealing the second amendment.

A conservative wrote this article, not a Democrat.

Now how many more times will you have to be told this, to get through your alcohol-soaked brain?

LOL, what kind of "conservative" wants to deport white people for not contributing enough to the GDP? He thinks nukes are great and that we should use them on North Korea, that criticism towards Israel is anti-semitism.

He's the sort of conservative that got Trump elected, the sort that got us into unwinnable wars based on lies, the sort that Hillary Clinton is and exactly the sort your kind should be opposing, not championing.

 

[miketx]

Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.


Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment


I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.


*SNIP*


Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.


*SNIP*


Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.




You should go read the parts I snipped out.

Come get them.

They don't have to come get them, if that was their goal. They could make you bring the guns to them.

Total lefttard bull!

 

[BreezeWood]

define arms - bolt or leaver action, 6 round capacity, non detachable magazine. same for public and lawenforcement alike.

 

[miketx]

define arms - bolt or leaver action, 6 round capacity, non detachable magazine. same for public and lawenforcement alike.

Leftard wet dream. Get of the country fascist.

 

[BreezeWood]

define arms - bolt or leaver action, 6 round capacity, non detachable magazine. same for public and lawenforcement alike.

Leftard wet dream. Get of the country fascist.

republicans are cowards ...

 

[Synthaholic]

Written by uber-conservative Bret Stephens.


Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment


I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.


*SNIP*


Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.


*SNIP*


Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.




You should go read the parts I snipped out.

Come get them.

They don't have to come get them, if that was their goal. They could make you bring the guns to them.

Total lefttard bull!

It would be pretty easy. The IRS can garnish your wages, your SS check could be held up until you comply.

There are many very easy ways for the government to secure your cooperation.