Rolling Stone: Repeal Second Amendment

[Norman]

These people want to take your guns so you will be defenseless against them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, fuck off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

AHAHAHAHAHA The stoners must be stoned.....never going to happen

 

[Ame®icano]

This country wouldn't exist without the 2nd amendment.

Majority of federal judges in US history (except maybe those from FDR era) wouldn't dare to even write an interpretation of one of those amendments let alone advocate changing them from their original form or repealing them.

The Constitution would've never been ratified without them. They're not something to change on an emotional whim.

How many gun owners are going to vote for Trump now that Hillary has dug in (again) with the gun grabbers?

I agree Ame®icano that the Bill of Rights is historic and should not be altered, any more than redesigning the White House.

To be fair, Hillary is smart enough not to threaten the Second Amendment when this is a given:

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Clinton has said the following:

• January 2008: "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
• August 2015: "We are smart enough — compassionate enough — to figure out how to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures."
• February 2016: “I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
• April 2016: "We can protect our Second Amendment rights AND take commonsense steps to prevent gun violence. It’s just a question of whether we choose to."
• August 2016: “We have got to do something about gun violence in America. I will take it on. There are many people who face it and know it, but then turn away because it’s hard. It’s a very political, difficult issue in America, but I believe we are smart enough, we are compassionate enough, to figure out how to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures so that whatever motivated this murderer, who eventually took his own life, we will not see more deaths — needless, senseless deaths."

“I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in northeastern Pennsylvania,” the former Secretary of State said.
But Clinton said the United States can’t ignore gun violence.
“I want you to know that we can’t ignore the Second Amendment and we can’t ignore the 33,000 people a year who die from gun violence,” she said.
“And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.”

You know how many things she said and are contradictory to what she said before?

I don't really care if she says all the right things, while doing all the wrong ones.

Look at things she's done and you'll know exactly where she is. Otherwise, what difference does it make?

 

[AntonToo]

Second amendment says people can own arms for the purpose of maintaining well trained militias.


Who in their right mind would object to fixing this clearly obsolete concern with barely any relevance to today's world and issues?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

They're utopian socialists, they could care less about the founders, their ideologue is John Stuart Mill. To them the Constitution has no inherent worth, it's just another document. This is why they abuse the judicial system to interpret the Constitution to whatever meaning they see fit.

Doesn't appear you know much about the Founders.

The Constitution is not written in stone and the Founders EXPECTED it to be re-written .. in fact, every 19 years according to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, fuck off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Do you have any actual evidence that a majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no need or reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is put an end to minority obstructionism by the NRA's Republican party regarding reasonable regulation of guns.

 

[emilynghiem]

This country wouldn't exist without the 2nd amendment.

Majority of federal judges in US history (except maybe those from FDR era) wouldn't dare to even write an interpretation of one of those amendments let alone advocate changing them from their original form or repealing them.

The Constitution would've never been ratified without them. They're not something to change on an emotional whim.

How many gun owners are going to vote for Trump now that Hillary has dug in (again) with the gun grabbers?

I agree Ame®icano that the Bill of Rights is historic and should not be altered, any more than redesigning the White House.

To be fair, Hillary is smart enough not to threaten the Second Amendment when this is a given:

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Clinton has said the following:

• January 2008: "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
• August 2015: "We are smart enough — compassionate enough — to figure out how to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures."
• February 2016: “I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
• April 2016: "We can protect our Second Amendment rights AND take commonsense steps to prevent gun violence. It’s just a question of whether we choose to."
• August 2016: “We have got to do something about gun violence in America. I will take it on. There are many people who face it and know it, but then turn away because it’s hard. It’s a very political, difficult issue in America, but I believe we are smart enough, we are compassionate enough, to figure out how to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures so that whatever motivated this murderer, who eventually took his own life, we will not see more deaths — needless, senseless deaths."

“I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in northeastern Pennsylvania,” the former Secretary of State said.
But Clinton said the United States can’t ignore gun violence.
“I want you to know that we can’t ignore the Second Amendment and we can’t ignore the 33,000 people a year who die from gun violence,” she said.
“And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.”

You know how many things she said and are contradictory to what she said before?

I don't really care if she says all the right things, while doing all the wrong ones.

Look at things she's done and you'll know exactly where she is. Otherwise, what difference does it make?

Yep Ame®icano I am a Democrat and I can't find fellow members much less leaders
who will commit to putting the Constitution first before party.

I would recommend getting an agreement in WRITING, signed by key leaders and officials
from both parties, on how we are going to interpret and treat the 2nd Amendment (as
well as the 1st Amendment on religious practice, beliefs and creeds) in context with
the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution. If we cannot agree on KEY principles
such as the 2nd, 10th and 14 Amendments, and what these mean or do not mean,
I would ask for a separation by party and shift the areas of disagreement locally
and out of the federal level, or divide the duties where people who do not believe
in armed enforcement by citizens can serve in areas that don't require this level of law enforcement.

For security and especially deterrence it is essential that govt, police and military uphold
the Constitution in agreement with citizens so there is absolute CONSISTENCY in enforcing rule of law.

Where we do not agree, such as socializing programs under federal govt instead of relegating
and managing these locally by the states, that's where I would call for separating programs and duties.

We could even introduce two additional offices by branching off the President into Internal and External
functions and also the Vice President into Internal and External. So leaders with different skills sets
and leadership styles can still hold the highest offices but work in specialized area either with
foreign policy and security, or internally with domestic and interstate issues that require economic
restructuring. This would recall the original set up where the President and Vice President could be from different parties; why not elect the External President/VP from one ticket and appoint or elect the Internal President/VP from the other where these positions do not succeed to the Presidency but focus on shifting internal social programs back to the people and states instead of burdening federal govt at the top.

I would recommend separating the parties from Govt where people who believe in socialized programs can manage those through the Democratic party and reform prisons, health care and schools under a collective system funded and participated in voluntarily by their members and leaders, similar to large church organizations or nonprofits.

And Republicans can focus on VA reforms and reimbursing contested war spending that could fund health care reforms through business plans that follow beliefs in free market instead of socialized medicine, investments and donations freely chosen by participants, instead of forced govt charity run amok.

Either we should agree what policies and programs belong on the federal level,
or find ways to separate and delegate the contested duties elsewhere. Since the
party system has organized representation "by political belief" I suggest using
this structure to delegate the duties to respective parties specializing in key areas and approaches.

Let Democrats take on restorative justice and INTERNAL programs that can reform our prison and mental health systems and provide universal care, education and housing under a sustainable school system.
Let Republicans handle deterrence of attacks on national and international security which is a full time job, and not bog down federal levels of govt with domestic programming that can be managed by an internal branch.

Let's have a meeting between the candidates and officials of both major parties, as well as minor ones who equally deserve some system or track for training upcoming leaders for higher positions in govt, and see
which leaders are best suited for what jobs. Why not create a system where all types and parties can work together, and lead solutions inside and out, that best represent the nation and serve the interests and demands.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, fuck off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Do you have any actual evidence that a majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

I see you have a problem with comprehending what someone has said.

What I wrote is clearly visible above. Now answer.

Where have I said exactly that majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

Try reading it again, it might help. If it doesn't try reading it slowly. If you still can't understand, come back and I'll draw it for you.

 

[BlindBoo]

This country wouldn't exist without the 2nd amendment.

Majority of federal judges in US history (except maybe those from FDR era) wouldn't dare to even write an interpretation of one of those amendments let alone advocate changing them from their original form or repealing them.

The Constitution would've never been ratified without them. They're not something to change on an emotional whim.

How many gun owners are going to vote for Trump now that Hillary has dug in (again) with the gun grabbers?

I agree Ame®icano that the Bill of Rights is historic and should not be altered, any more than redesigning the White House.

To be fair, Hillary is smart enough not to threaten the Second Amendment when this is a given:

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Clinton has said the following:

• January 2008: "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."
• August 2015: "We are smart enough — compassionate enough — to figure out how to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures."
• February 2016: “I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."
• April 2016: "We can protect our Second Amendment rights AND take commonsense steps to prevent gun violence. It’s just a question of whether we choose to."
• August 2016: “We have got to do something about gun violence in America. I will take it on. There are many people who face it and know it, but then turn away because it’s hard. It’s a very political, difficult issue in America, but I believe we are smart enough, we are compassionate enough, to figure out how to balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures so that whatever motivated this murderer, who eventually took his own life, we will not see more deaths — needless, senseless deaths."

“I know how important gun ownership and particularly hunting is here in northeastern Pennsylvania,” the former Secretary of State said.
But Clinton said the United States can’t ignore gun violence.
“I want you to know that we can’t ignore the Second Amendment and we can’t ignore the 33,000 people a year who die from gun violence,” she said.
“And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.”

Yeah see, she want to "take our guns". She's a "Gun Grabber".


</sarcasm>

 

[martybegan]

There is no need or reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. What we need to do is put an end to minority obstructionism by the NRA's Republican party regarding reasonable regulation of guns.

"reasonable", lol.

 

[Contumacious]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, fuck off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Just as soon as Hillary is elected the 2A will be repealed. Can they wait a year or so?


.

 

[BlindBoo]

Second amendment says people can own arms for the purpose of maintaining well trained militias.


Who in their right mind would object to fixing this clearly obsolete concern with barely any relevance to today's world and issues?

Not the one I read.

The SC ruled that the first part doesn't matter.

But then again they once ruled that enslaved humans were nothing but property, so go figure.

 

[martybegan]

Second amendment says people can own arms for the purpose of maintaining well trained militias.


Who in their right mind would object to fixing this clearly obsolete concern with barely any relevance to today's world and issues?

Not the one I read.

The SC ruled that the first part doesn't matter.

But then again they once ruled that enslaved humans were nothing but property, so go figure.

They also once ruled that separate but "equal" was OK as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's been always leftist goal to repeal 2nd and ultimately 1st amendment and they're not even hiding it anymore.

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies. If they have majority they wouldn't be talking about gun control, they would be doing it. If they want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment requirements for doing so are clear. Why aren't they not doing it? Because requirement will never be met.

You lefties want to repeal it, here is the way. If you can't meet those requirements, fuck off while reading "shall not be infringed".

Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.

Do you have any actual evidence that a majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

I see you have a problem with comprehending what someone has said.

What I wrote is clearly visible above. Now answer.

Where have I said exactly that majority of Americans are opposed to stricter gun control?

Try reading it again, it might help. If it doesn't try reading it slowly. If you still can't understand, come back and I'll draw it for you.

"Lefties can keep lying how majority of Americans wants gun control and they know those are lies."

 

[emilynghiem]

They're utopian socialists, they could care less about the founders, their ideologue is John Stuart Mill. To them the Constitution has no inherent worth, it's just another document. This is why they abuse the judicial system to interpret the Constitution to whatever meaning they see fit.

Doesn't appear you know much about the Founders.

The Constitution is not written in stone and the Founders EXPECTED it to be re-written .. in fact, every 19 years according to Thomas Jefferson.

Dear BlackAsCoal
Even so, shouldn't it be revised by CONSENSUS?
If one set of political beliefs dominates and excludes another,
isn't that in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment principles
defending and protecting BELIEFS equally. NOT abusing govt
and majority rule to OPPRESS the BELIEFS of others.

And YES Jefferson did express concern about protecting
the interests of the minority dissent under majority ruled decisions.

SEE Jefferson's quote from the Declaration of Independence:
that the Just Power of Govt derive from the CONSENT of the Governed.

Wouldn't CONSENSUS on laws represent Consent the people
rather than rule by one party's beliefs at the expense of another's?

 

[emilynghiem]

Second amendment says people can own arms for the purpose of maintaining well trained militias.


Who in their right mind would object to fixing this clearly obsolete concern with barely any relevance to today's world and issues?

Not the one I read.

The SC ruled that the first part doesn't matter.

But then again they once ruled that enslaved humans were nothing but property, so go figure.

They also once ruled that separate but "equal" was OK as well.

martybegan why not apply this segregation to political parties?
If we treat them as political religions, each espousing their own partisan beliefs,
why shouldn't they be treated as any other religious organization or cult?
And keep those beliefs to their own members and out of govt except if the public agrees!

 

[skookerasbil]

meh

Nobody cares about Rolling Stone.......soon to be out of business.

This stuff is all just Soetero and his meathead pals trying to rouse the right......maybe provoke some nut so they can say, "Ahhhhhhh Haaaaaaaa!!"

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....and the business about the AR-15 is beyond bogus and only embraced by those whose weaponry experience is in the living room with an automatic NURF!! Anybody who has spent 5 minutes on a shotty line at a range knows what a slug would do at close range with lots of folks standing like targets. Or a guy with three belts, a speed loader and a sawed off 12G with 00..........but the NURF guy's will still lecture us.

 

[HenryBHough]

And when they get that for which they beg will not some filthy capitalist get rich selling the tee-shirt to libbie-chill'ns?