The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, fuck you and the broken down mule you rode to town.

Many of my references to murdered children simply targeted one here who found what happened at My Lai 4 to be a source of humor. I object and if that ruffles your feathers, you can shit and fall back in it.

I'll tell you what is nauseating, your twisted notion that pointing civilization in the direction of an armed encampment is the defining solution. How many guns do small-dicked assholes need to feel safe?

I'll concede that addressing that children, and the public in general, not be unprotected is part of the equation though not to the extremes that you'd probably push. However, unlike you, I'm not going to ignore the other side of the equation. So, if my mentioning the murders bothers you, tough shit.

Btw, just who is going to pay all the new taxes necessary to fund your armed encampment? It sure as hell isn't going to be the teat-sucking red states. Typically, less than a dozen and a half states operate in the red with the federal government. Those states are almost exclusively blue. If the nation were divided into blue and red, the United States of Conservative America wouldn't be able to fund an army.

Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.

Of course they do - it's the only way they can advance their agenda.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Does gun registration make you unsafe?

It doesn't prevent gun related crimes thus not worth the expense to make one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Does gun registration make you unsafe?

It doesn't make you safe

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't make you safe

Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.

Which is why anti-gun loons like it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Blow it out your ass you'll get no sympathy from me. You want dead kids That's what you'll get.

I don't want or need your sympathy.

You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.

Big Reb in North Carolina, fuck you and your confederate flag.

Wow, look where the conversation has gone since I started returning fire on the insults. I'll confess that calling you an asshole is a lot easier than rational conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.

Says he who uses dead kids to push unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It doesn't make you safe

Sure it does.

Golly Gomer, it's so much easier to make arguments the way you guys do. Just open and close with a lame opinion.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Says he who uses dead kids to push unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.

I haven't pushed anything but discourse.

I think what's bothering you is what my brother calls "consciousness of guilt".

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes, it gives government the ability to determine everyone who has a gun.

No, it does not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I haven't pushed anything but discourse.

-snort-
Even you don't believe that.

I think what's bothering you is what my brother calls "consciousness of guilt".

For no rational reason whatsoever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure it does.

Golly Gomer, it's so much easier to make arguments the way you guys do. Just open and close with a lame opinion.

Irony is an antiguner who doesn't have a clue on gun calling an expert word as a lame opinion. Leaving kids unprotected for creating more failed gun laws does nothing but get kids killed. Biden wants to take a few lessons from Trudeau. Trudeau said s person could not defend themselves with a gun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't want or need your sympathy.

You are the one who tolerates dead kids, many of which could be avoided if it weren't more important for you to avoid the inconvenience regulations that would not interfere with you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.

Big Reb in North Carolina, fuck you and your confederate flag.

Wow, look where the conversation has gone since I started returning fire on the insults. I'll confess that calling you an asshole is a lot easier than rational conversation.

Asshat look at the year 1775 it doesn't say 1861. I don't tolerate dead children but you sure in hell does. You can't make a rational discussion and support gun control because it's not rational.

 

[Orangecat]

Anyone who thinks it's funny to make jokes about shooting children and their mothers, is an outlier to the human race. That would be you; it's all here on this thread.

Nice opinion, spud.

I don't expect everyone will agree with me. But, in the case of the current conversation, I expect far more people to be closer to my views than yours. After all, how many people want to identify with someone, like you, who thinks dead kids are something about which to joke?

That's the difference between you and I. I don't base my views on how popular they might be with the masses. Your intellectual insecurity prevents you from doing so.

What's with referring to me as kid?

You post like a child, regardless of your actual age.

I'm probably old enough to be your daddy.

You'd be dead.

Of course, I'm not your daddy. You don't look Sicilian. As a matter of fact, you don't even look human. Wait a minute Adolfo, that fits.

Babble much? Lulz.

 

[Orangecat]

Stop the fucking shit with the children.

That imbecile has been bitch-slapped so silly in this thread that he has to resort to the typical virtue signaling appeals to emotion.

 

[Orangecat]

How many guns do small-dicked assholes need to feel safe?

How many do you have?

 

[Orangecat]

you9r right to [lay cowboys and indians.

Lulz.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Laws about freedom of speech don’t just shift when it comes to content and context, they’re also constantly updated to address something else: technology. Radio. Movies. Television. The internet. Even comic books. All have sparked changes in what is permitted and how speech is regulated. But somehow, we pretend that guns are different; that words written when the most deadly weapon required a ramrod and black powder mean that we can’t make adjustments for a semi-automatic rifle and a 30-round clip.

The truth is that guns are different. Because the right to bear arms is a lesser right. A right that was never intended to exist at all.

What makes individual gun ownership a lesser right? It’s a right that only exists in the minds of a handful of hard-right Supreme Court justices who happen to be on the court at this moment. Until 2008, no federal court had ever ruled that the Second Amendment included a right to individual gun ownership. It was always understood as it was written: Guns were allowed in individual hands as a means to supply the armed forces.

Here’s the Milwaukee Independent looking at how Chief Justice Warren Burger discussed the Second Amendment.

That the Second Amendment exists at all is more an accident of timing than an attempt to put guns in the hands of every American.
The amendment grew out of a fear that having a standing army would leave the nation open to depredations by an authoritarian leader, or that the nascent democracy would be overthrown by a military junta. To that end, they explicitly inserted the Second Amendment as an alternative means of providing national defense.

There were multiple drafts of the Second Amendment. Every one of them includes text explaining that this amendment exists only because it’s needed to provide for the nation’s defense.
Just a year after the Constitution was ratified, George Washington nudged Congress to create an official U.S. military, but the still-fearful Congress limited that force to just few hundred soldiers and officers. It would be another six years before it was allowed to grow significantly. When war came in 1812 two things were immediately obvious: The number of soldiers then in the official U.S. military were far from enough to defend the nation, and the poorly organized civilian militias for which the Second Amendment was created were an absolute failure when it came to national defense.

In the next year, the professional military of the United States grew by over 300%. “Second Amendment solutions” were on their way out.
The Second Amendment is failure. It never worked for its intended purposes. It was born from the understandable fears of a new nation engaged in a radical new scheme. But it was a mistake. It may be the most costly mistake this nation has ever made other than failing to end slavery at the outset.

The right thing to do would be to recognize that mistake and pass a new amendment that simply ends the Second Amendment, just as the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (Take a drink.)

Instead, we get statements like this piece of profound ignorance. One that is wrong. Wrong. Wrong again. And then … still wrong.



Recognizing that an actual repeal of the Second Amendment—while absolutely just—isn’t likely, the next best thing is to simply recognize that the right to individual gun ownership is a lesser right, one whose appearance in that useless amendment subjects it to practical constraint.

The Second Amendment was a failure from the start, and should have been repealed 200 years ago

There is no such thing as an unconstrained right. Speech has limits. Religion has limits. Assembly has limits. The idea that any of these things can be completely “free” of government oversight is a pipedream, and everyone from the founders to the...

www.dailykos.com

Individual gun ownership rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Heller v DC

Just like abortion rights are the result of a Supreme Court decision. Specifically Roe v Wade

The current court is ready to take away Roe v Wade.

A future court can do the same with Heller v DC.

This is what happens when communists interpret the constitution...
...'what it says is false and the truth lies in what it what it does not say'

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It doesn't make you safe

But it makes you safer (I don't deal; in absolutes).