Why was the second amendment written?

[Bo Didleysquat]

Funny how you present some obscure explanation of “well regulated” while you ignore how well regulated militias of the 18th century were organized and controlled

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth. What are "the woke" doing? Posting and tweeting?

No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.

Yes, we the people are the enemy.

 

[westwall]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

 

[westwall]

It's not obscure. It is the meaning of the term at the time. Funnily enough you find well regulated on clocks of the era.

I think you will have a hard time convincing people that government needed to control who could own clocks.

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth. What are "the woke" doing? Posting and tweeting?

No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.

Yes, we the people are the enemy.

To the ruling elite that the Trump admin has exposed. But socialism is only more of the same. Idiots, like you either haven't figured that out, or don't care.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

 

[westwall]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

They control the people themselves, that's why they don't mind the people having guns to use on each other because they've seen the public will swallow shit forever and never do anything but turn upon each other.

Yes, government officials, the schools, politicians, and of course, the billionaires who buy those politicians have been hard at work dumbing down the population.

They screwed the pooch with the impeachment though. That woke a lot of people up.

Bullshit, the american public is utterly cucked to concentrated wealth. What are "the woke" doing? Posting and tweeting?

No, they are talking face to face and figuring out how to deal with agents provocateurs, such as yourself, so that they are ready when the time comes.

Yes, we the people are the enemy.

To the ruling elite that the Trump admin has exposed. But socialism is only more of the same. Idiots, like you either haven't figured that out, or don't care.

He exposed no one and Ghislaine Maxwell was allowed to slither back into the shadows so as not to embarrass our pedophile aristocracy.

 

[westwall]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.

No thanks.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.

No thanks.

Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I doubt many will agree on the purpose of the second amendment, but I'd love to hear why everybody thinks the second amendment was written. Personally, I understand that it was put there so that we could take back our government if they get out of control.

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

You aren't much on history, are you? While the framers were mostly men of means, some of them earned their way into a life of luxury. They created the greatest nation in the annals of history where even a poor boy like Benjamin Franklin could become rich. They opened that door to everybody.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

 

[westwall]

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

No, they weren't you ignorant clod. The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.

 

[westwall]

According to my history lessons / teacher (public school circa mid 70's,) The Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) was added to put an end to the rebellion that was surely going to rise against the newly written Constitution, as it was.

The Constitution, without the Coll of Rights, did not go far enough to give "the people" the power and control OVER their government that they were demanding.

The entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was about limiting the power of the government and recognizing the rights and the power of the people.

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.

No thanks.

Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.

Yet accurate.

 

[westwall]

You have a 99.997 chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun

So guns aren't the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

And, driving a car is a privilege. Not a Right.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Commies can never say unalienable.

You have conflated Liberty with citizenry. Despite the fact that only whites could be citizens under the Constitution as originally written and intended, people came from all over the world because of the opportunities and the fact that the unalienable Rights for all was becoming a reality. Having all the Rights in the world, however, does not guarantee citizenship.

No hon, the founders were just aristocrats who had a pissing match with another set of aristocrats. Kinda like your political system operates now.

No hon, the Founders were exceptionally well read, but over all were nothing more than farmers. Your propaganda trying to claim otherwise is simply stupid.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.

No, they weren't you ignorant clod. The merchant class and the bankers, were, and have always been, the collectors of wealth.

Much like your "job creator" class who we subsidize with socialism.

They were the wealth in the colonies, they gobbled up land they cleansed ethnically and enslaved. They shut everyone out of representation but themselves.
Click to expand...

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

LOL. A gun is a problem when it is in the hands of a drunk, a mentally ill person or a violent criminal, or one in the making. Thus I will now use the phrase people control, does that make the issue clear.

Every post when gun control is the issue, the same people defend all common sense gun regulations with the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that phrase is taken literally it means the drunk, the seriously mentally ill and the violent felon have the absolute right to own and possess a firearm all of the time, everywhere they go.

Listen to yourself: gun control.

If a man is a drunk, he can go to a bar, drink until he's fall down drunk, get in his car, drive down the road and kill your family in a DUI.

He goes to court, then to prison and serves his term. He gets out of jail, goes back to a bar, gets sloppy ass drunk and gets in his car and kills another person. Our society tolerates that, being satisfied with criminalizing his actions, not banning alcohol or cars.

When it comes to firearms, people like you are only consistent with inconsistency. Bottom line: The way to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is to keep the bodies of those wrong hands in jail, prison, or a mental institution. That controls the wrong hands - which is the real issue.

Actually, that scenario isn't quite true. Here in Texas, if you are arrested for DUI, they can (and usually do) take your license and suspend it for 3 months or longer.

First-Offense DWI in Texas

If you’re lawfully arrested for a first-offense DWI in Texas, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) can impose administrative license revocation penalties. If you refuse (see below) or fail a chemical test, the arresting agency will confiscate your license on the spot. The officer will issue a “Notice of Suspension” which functions as a temporary driving permit, and you have 15 days from the date of arrest to request a hearing to contest the suspension. If you don’t request a hearing, your license will remain suspended for 90 days starting the 41st day after your arrest. If you do request a hearing, the Notice of Suspension will allow you to continue driving until you attend the hearing and receive a final decision.

How is what I said then not true? The principle is, they deal with the individual. If the analogy is applied, if a person were caught in a DUI, they would take his car, ban alcohol and make it so the offender could never buy alcohol again.

Interestingly enough, they do test people convicted of DUI to see if they have been drinking while they are on probation. That also means a limited or suspended license.

And............in cases of people with multiple DUI's, they will outfit the car with a breathalizer so that it won't start if they are drunk.

Get enough convictions, and your license is gone forever.

And, if a person commits a crime like assault or spousal abuse, I want their gun rights suspended until they prove they can behave.

And, driving a car is a privilege. Not a Right.

Depends upon how wealthy you are. Corruption is fine and dandy for the aristocracy. We see that daily.

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

Lofty vacuous rhetoric when only white males of the aristocracy are granted representation. Clearly the founders' claim that there were God given inalienable rights, only applied to wealthy white males.

Yes, the Trump administration has exposed that fact quite nicely. Why don't you support Trump? Oh, right, you are one of the scumbags trying to make sure there is a two tier system. A very small ruling elite, and the rest of the serfs.

No thanks.

I do not glom onto the-lessor-of-2-evils nonsense, that's all. Corruption is corruption, lying is lying.

Yes, and you seem to support whatever lies help your commie scumbags.

No thanks.

Your labels are meaningless and irrelevant.

Yet accurate.

No, meaningless and irrelevant are not accurate.