Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[HumpDayHoratio]

The primary reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment is because the “shall not be infringed” language has been exploited by bad actors.

It was a poorly-written addition to Constitution that serves no purpose in the 21st Century.

BTW…who are these “bad actors” of whom ye speak?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

I know a LOT more than you do about THAT subject!

Sure ya do champ…

You can’t even articulate anything other than you don’t like it.

Noted.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Look, take away the light sabers. Palpatine approves.

 

[Rebel5soul]

The primary reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment is because the “shall not be infringed” language has been exploited by bad actors.

It was a poorly-written addition to Constitution that serves no purpose in the 21st Century.

That is the language to tyrants.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Well, for one it wasn’t written in the 21st Century. The beauty is the Constitution was written by very smart men. It’s basically served us well for almost 250 yrs. You can complain, you wont be the first, that it was “poorly-written”, but as I’ve shown you with the Pennsylvania example, the Founders knew just of what they spoke.

It’s why those quotes from those 18th Century State Constitutions were used. This wasn’t some flippant Amendment that was thrown together last second…as you two jokesters would have us believe.

I have to ask…if your people had had something similar…would they have had the troubles they traditionally had? Something to ponder

Israel has stricter gun laws than the United States. Israelis know that treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right is a better choice to maintain safety and security.

The founders weren’t infallible. Enshrining slavery in the Constitution was a stupid idea. Making private gun ownership a fundamental right was the same sort of stupidity.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Israel has stricter gun laws than the United States. Israelis know that treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right is a better choice to maintain safety and security.

The founders weren’t infallible. Enshrining slavery in the Constitution was a stupid idea. Making private gun ownership a fundamental right was the same sort of stupidity.

Yes, they stripped their citizens of the individual right. That worked out so well on Oct. 6th.

 

[Wilson23]

That is the language to tyrants.

They have nothing to do with it. The 2A does NOT exist to facilitate resistance to tyranny, and countiries like the UK and Japan that have strict gun control are in no way tyrannical.

 

[Wilson23]

Yes, they stripped their citizens of the individual right. That worked out so well on Oct. 6th.

No way that story goes better if the rave club is full of ARMED Israelis.

 

[HisArpy]

A despot is taking over the United States right now, and gun owners aren't doing anything to stop him.

Perhaps that's because what you're trying to say isn't actually happening.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Perhaps that's because what you're trying to say isn't actually happening.

The JAP is stamping her foot frustration of not getting her way. And here she is on Lit. I think she needs a good fucking.

 

[HisArpy]

The JAP is stamping her foot frustration of not getting her way. And here she is on Lit. I think she needs a good fucking.

I'd rather go sailing.

 

[Rebel5soul]

I'd rather go sailing.

Seriously.

 

[HisArpy]

Seriously.

I'm absolutely serious. You ever been sailing to the Channel Islands off the coast of So Cal in January?

No brainless biddy in LA is worth giving that up.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Demanding the public be stripped of self defense capability is an impressive testament to how safe and trusting BSG and her supporters feel under Trump and his administration.

 

[Wilson23]

Demanding the public be stripped of self defense capability

As against whom? Be very careful about that kind of oft-repeated phrase -- make sure you NEVER mean "self defense" AGAINST GOVERNMENT.

 

[TastySuckToy]

make sure you NEVER mean "self defense" AGAINST GOVERNMENT.

You don't think legal citizens have the right to defend themselves against the government?

 

[Wilson23]

You don't think legal citizens have the right to defend themselves against the government?

Of course not. No government is a government at all unless it holds a monopoly on the lawful use of force.

And in practical terms, citizens have not the POWER to fight government even when armed.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Of course not.

So if the government decides to round up specific groups of legal citizens and put them in camps, citizens should just accept it? Because fighting back would be pointless?

 

[Wilson23]

So if the government decides to round up specific groups of legal citizens and put them in camps, citizens should just accept it? Because fighting back would be pointless?

It always has to be a last resort. Revolutions are sometimes worth having, but they're always chancy -- even when the revolutionaries can be sure of winning, they can never be sure of what comes next. You take the Oath of the Tennis Court, and next thing you know, Napoleon is Emperor.

 

[LLCox]

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.

As long as food is plentiful Everyone will be head down in their iphones. The revolution waits.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It always has to be a last resort.

So then deterrence and prevention should really be high on your list, right?

For example, if a corrupt government is in power and wants to do terrible things, like the afore mentioned rounding up certain groups of legal citizens for 'processing', if all the citizens are potentially armed as well, that puts a huge damper on that idea, doesn't it?

 

[JohnEngelman]

A despot is taking over the United States right now, and gun owners aren't doing anything to stop him.

Many gun owners think Trump is the greatest president in American history.

 

[JohnEngelman]

There is some evidence that allowing people to get permits to carry concealed handguns reduces the crime rate.

I am in favor of gun control laws that reduce the crime rate. I am opposed to gun control laws that raise the crime rate. I recognize that it is hard to tell the difference. The Second Amendment interferes with good gun control laws.

I think the use and owning of a gun should be treated the way the use and owing of a car is treated. It should be a privilege reluctantly granted by the government after paying fees and passing tests.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I think the use and owning of a gun should be treated the way the use and owing of a car is treated.

You realize that means you're advocating for major reductions in firearm regulations, right?

There are no background checks or seven day waiting periods to purchase a car, and anyone can go buy any kind of car they want and drive it off the dealership within the hour. The longest waiting period there is probably the drive to the dealership itself.

And you're perfectly free to buy pretty much any vehicle you want from your neighbour in five minutes.

 

[Wilson23]

So then deterrence and prevention should really be high on your list, right?

For example, if a corrupt government is in power and wants to do terrible things, like the afore mentioned rounding up certain groups of legal citizens for 'processing', if all the citizens are potentially armed as well, that puts a huge damper on that idea, doesn't it?

It never did before, did it? Saddam Hussein ruled an armed populace. (American occupiers were astonished at the number of privately-owned assault rifles in circulation.) That never stopped him from doing whatever he wanted to them. A government is always better ORGANIZED.