Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[hunarcy]

Nope. It's people. If they don't have guns, they'll use knifes and swords and hammers and bricks.

And it's so much harder to outrun a knife, hammer or brick compared to a bullet, right?

My Gosh, you are stupid.

Well, if you think you can outrun a bullet then there's somebody in this two-person conversation who is stupid all right and it's not me.

My Gosh, you ARE stupid.

 

[hunarcy]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

stop being such a shill; the People are the Militia.

No, people are the Militia. The People are the individual members of our society.

 

[hunarcy]

I realize you aren't a citizen, but in the United States, there is no right to drive and regulations exist to regulate driving. Owning firearms is a right that shall not be infringed. Just as voting is a right.

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Wow, your ignorance is all encompassing. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect private property rights? "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

So far, you're wrong about everything you've posted. That's sad.

 

[danielpalos]

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what the militia part is about is saying the feds cannot ban States from having their own armed forces.

Two different rights in the same amendment, but one allows the other, i.e. the people's RKBA allows the States to call militias.

See my last to Loki above. I disagree with you interpretation and anybody, or any body (USSC) that says different.....

That is, you choose to be wrong.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

Little Missy, I'm not wrong. While the people are the militia, it's not the right of the militia, it's the right of the People.

dear, the People are the Militia; Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

Stupid shit like that has to be trolling, which cannot be countered.
If you don't feed the trolls, they go away.

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

Shoo, adults are talking.

dears, adult conversations require adults, not children who Only have fallacy to work with.

Little Missy, you don't have a CLUE what an adult conversation is, because you merely vomit refuted talking points as if they should be taken seriously. They are not and you are a time sucking troll.

dear, you haven't refuted anything, since Only have fallacy to work with. That means, i am right, simply Because i say so.

 

[danielpalos]

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

stop being such a shill; the People are the Militia.

No, people are the Militia. The People are the individual members of our society.

Dear, any Militia is comprised of Individuals. Only shills don't know that.

 

[danielpalos]

Having a militia with the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't say anything about the individual....

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Wow, your ignorance is all encompassing. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect private property rights? "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

So far, you're wrong about everything you've posted. That's sad.

nope; it secures Due Process, dear.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

 

[hunarcy]

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Wow, your ignorance is all encompassing. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect private property rights? "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

So far, you're wrong about everything you've posted. That's sad.

nope; it secures Due Process, dear.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

You are an idiot and a troll, little missy. You're on ignore.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

Nope. The people retain the right to arms, the States retain the right to call militias. Just because the States don't do it anymore doesn't mean the people lose their RKBA.

dear, rights in purely private property are secured in State Constitutions, no federal involvement at all.

Wow, your ignorance is all encompassing. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution doesn't protect private property rights? "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

So far, you're wrong about everything you've posted. That's sad.

nope; it secures Due Process, dear.

dear, you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

You are an idiot and a troll, little missy. You're on ignore.

nothing but fallacy for your constituency in the public domain? tsk. tsk.

 

[LOki]

The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, what the militia part is about is saying the feds cannot ban States from having their own armed forces.

Two different rights in the same amendment, but one allows the other, i.e. the people's RKBA allows the States to call militias.

See my last to Loki above. I disagree with you interpretation and anybody, or any body (USSC) that says different.....

That is, you choose to be wrong.

The right of the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
The people.

dear, why do you choose to be wrong?

the People are the Militia.

Little Missy, I'm not wrong. While the people are the militia, it's not the right of the militia, it's the right of the People.

dear, the People are the Militia; Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

thank you for the reality check. it was needed.

simply jumping on the bandwagon is a fallacy as well, dears.

Shoo, adults are talking.

dears, adult conversations require adults, not children who Only have fallacy to work with.

Little Missy, you don't have a CLUE what an adult conversation is, because you merely vomit refuted talking points as if they should be taken seriously. They are not and you are a time sucking troll.

dear, you haven't refuted anything, since Only have fallacy to work with. That means, i am right, simply Because i say so.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

 

[LOki]

One last time, moron. While the militia is mentioned in the subordinate clause, the right of the PEOPLE (individuals) shall not be infringed. Why do fools such as yourself ignore that?

Only the People who are a well regulated militia, dear.

You are wrong, boring, and stupid. AGAIN. STILL.

stop being such a shill; the People are the Militia.

No, people are the Militia. The People are the individual members of our society.

Dear, any Militia is comprised of Individuals. Only shills don't know that.

 

[danielpalos]

Isn't Loki, the god of deceivers, hypocrites and tricksters who's Vicar on Earth was P.T. Barnum?

 

[LOki]

Isn't Loki, the god of deceivers, hypocrites and tricksters who's Vicar on Earth was P.T. Barnum?

 

[danielpalos]

Nope; sometimes, Satan and his good buddy Faust are simply funner to hang out with.

 

[LOki]

Nope; sometimes, Satan and his good buddy Faust are simply funner to hang out with.

 

[danielpalos]

Satan sometimes gets Faustina involved, and she is really hot.

 

[2aguy]

And how is gun control working for the civilians in Syria? Or Iraq, or for the Kurds, the Mexicans, and any of a number of countries with disarmed civilian populations whose governments have murdered them?

Oh....you are back to discussion tyranny again. Convenient. That's what you always do. But....in fact....your primary concern is fear of personal injury at the hands of a thug. The opposition to tyranny can be maintained with regulations on firearms. Easily.

Tell that to the Germans.....

So stuck in 1933, you are. Poor you.

Yeah…about 12 million people didn't make it out of Germany 6 years later…..

 

[2aguy]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Nope…they were the standard rifle of the most modern militaries of the world……they would be the equivalent of our M-4s…..so the civilians should have access to whatever the modern U.S. military and police have.

 

[2aguy]

Should be completely repealed. Pleanty of countries get on just fine and a lot better than us without 2nd amendments.

Except when they march their citizens into death camps.....Europe murdered 12 million people that way.

And of course everyday crime increases...women are raped and people are robbed and stabbed...but that's okay...they have national healthcare..right?

And every day crime increases here in America. Women are rape, rob, stabbed, holdup, car jacking, home invasion, kidnapping etc. etc......Extremely rare Extremely rare that a victims was able to pull their gun to protect themselves.
In Southern California where home invasion is rampant and yet NONE was able to defend themselves with their almighty guns.

Bill clinton commissioned a gun self defense study in 1994…the two anti gun researchers found that Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and in many cases save lives.