Repeal the 2nd Amendment

Allowing private ownership of guns is a failed experiment. It just leads to more dead Americans. And the talking point that gun owners will take up arms to prevent government tyranny is being shown to be false right now.
When you take away the guns from the military and the police, who's going to take away wats guns? Lol.
 
Repeal it before people can start using their firearms against a corrupt and tyrannical government? I wasn't told that was how it was going to work.
 
Allowing private ownership of guns is a failed experiment. It just leads to more dead Americans. And the talking point that gun owners will take up arms to prevent government tyranny is being shown to be false right now.
The purpose of the 2A was never to facilitate rebellion. It was to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- which is now an utterly stupid and irrelevant goal.
 
The purpose of the 2A was never to facilitate rebellion. It was to facilitate a militia-based national defense system -- which is now an utterly stupid and irrelevant goal.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to suppress slave rebellions. Since abolition and the creation of the National Guard, it serves no useful purpose.
 
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to suppress slave rebellions. Since abolition and the creation of the National Guard, it serves no useful purpose.
Well, that too, but mainly it was for the militia. The FFs were afraid a large regular army might be used as an instrument of domestic rule, as such typically were in Europe, and they still had ugly memories of the redcoats. The idea was that the U.S. would have a small peacetime army; when war broke out the militia would be called up, and every man would bring his own musket from home.

But, that was all about the militia as an ARM of the state, not as a countervailing force AGAINST it. The original text of the Constitution empowers the President to command the militia, and the 2A does nothing to change that.

And "militia" in the 18th Century sense -- a non-professional volunteer force, as distinct from a NG of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. We have no use for the militia any more, it's obsolete.
 
Allowing private ownership of guns is a failed experiment. It just leads to more dead Americans. And the talking point that gun owners will take up arms to prevent government tyranny is being shown to be false right now.
Never could figure out how your country managed to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people without knowledge of how to safely use, maintain and secure firearms should have ready access to weapons, including weapons far more powerful than, for example, the rifles carried by infantry soldiers in World War II.
 
Never could figure out how your country managed to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people without knowledge of how to safely use, maintain and secure firearms should have ready access to weapons, including weapons far more powerful than, for example, the rifles carried by infantry soldiers in World War II.
It's kind of a . . . cultural thing.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God,_guns_and_gays
I really would like to say "We don't like to talk about it," because it really is just that shameful, but in fact we talk about it all the time.
 
Never could figure out how your country managed to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people without knowledge of how to safely use, maintain and secure firearms should have ready access to weapons, including weapons far more powerful than, for example, the rifles carried by infantry soldiers in World War II.
The wording of the 2nd Amendment is loose enough that gun nuts have twisted it to indulge their hobby. They justify it by claiming that private gun ownership is a bulwark against tyranny, which is an argument that doesn't hold water anymore.
 
The wording of the 2nd Amendment is loose enough that gun nuts have twisted it to indulge their hobby. They justify it by claiming that private gun ownership is a bulwark against tyranny, which is an argument that doesn't hold water anymore.
I occasionally see YouTube ads for concealable gun kits to "prepare for what's coming,"
 
Hel_Books said:
Never could figure out how your country managed to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people without knowledge of how to safely use, maintain and secure firearms should have ready access to weapons, including weapons far more powerful than, for example, the rifles carried by infantry soldiers in World War II.

But it's not, really, is it? Up until quite recently, your law-abiding civilians had their shotguns and deer rifles, and those were the people living out in places where people might go hunting. Pistols were for law officers or licenced civilians (bank security, etc.). Dodge City and the OK Corral were in the movies, not real life.

Now, for some reason, your country is turning into Syria or Haiti or some Brazilian favela.
 
Hel_Books said:
Never could figure out how your country managed to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people without knowledge of how to safely use, maintain and secure firearms should have ready access to weapons, including weapons far more powerful than, for example, the rifles carried by infantry soldiers in World War II.

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is loose enough that gun nuts have twisted it to indulge their hobby. They justify it by claiming that private gun ownership is a bulwark against tyranny, which is an argument that doesn't hold water anymore.
The words, "A well regulated Militia . . " would seem to be pretty specific, especially for those with a "conservative" or "textualist" or "originalist" view of the law.
 
An unarmed civilian population and an armed military works every time a despot wants to take over a country. But that's what the lefties here really want. :)
What BSG needs to do is go into AI and research how many illegal uses of firearms are committed by people who already have an arrest record and note that they probably account for 70-80% of all gun crime. The real solution to the issue is to snuff out the criminal element, not the rights of law-abiding citizens.
 
BrightShinyGirl said:
That's what they said about gay marriage and legalizing pot. If enough of us keep pushing hard enough, the impossible can become possible.

The majority of states are pro 2A. There aren't enough votes.
Haven't you learned anything from Donald Trump? The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and if they can overturn Roe v. Wade (You can still hear people laughing about stare decisis and "conservatism"!) then, down the line, they can overturn NYSRPA v. Bruen.
 
Back
Top