Rolling Stone Calls For Repeal Of Second Amendement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Various groups have tried to get rid of the constitution, rewrite it, or the like. Either for immagration, guns, and other freedoms. This does not surprise me. Even the house is pushing more... already so many other laws, agencies, and the like have been enacted that almost none of them really stand anymore.
 
they will keep trying.
doubt they will give up
all things considered, and they seem to have allot of momentum now..
so
 
Something will get passed... and more rights will be lost... people will happily enslave their self for the facade of saftey...
 
Read what it takes to change the Constitution. It won't happen. As to the 2nd amendment, limits could be put in place to restrict or make it illegal to purchase or own high capacity magazines fro assault weapons without changing the amendment: you could still own the weapon, but only have a magazine that holds a few rounds.
 
seb said:
Read what it takes to change the Constitution. It won't happen. As to the 2nd amendment, limits could be put in place to restrict or make it illegal to purchase or own high capacity magazines fro assault weapons without changing the amendment: you could still own the weapon, but only have a magazine that holds a few rounds.
Click to expand...

Laws help how? There is already that slickly little law about not killing... also the one about discharging firearms within buildings or in city limits... oh and that one about holding people against their will... how many laws need to get written before people figure out it is not laws that help? Laws only guide those willing to follow them...
 
Jezie said:
Laws help how? There is already that slickly little law about not killing... also the one about discharging firearms within buildings or in city limits... oh and that one about holding people against their will... how many laws need to get written before people figure out it is not laws that help? Laws only guide those willing to follow them...
Click to expand...

So do you feel safer now with the proliferation of guns and assault weapons now in the hands of civilians? The NRA wants you to believe that the more people having guns will make you safer, when the opposite is actually the case. How many of these senseless shootings have to take place before something is done? Is the number 100 dead? 200, 300? What is the number that will finally get something done? One other purpose of government is to protect us from ourselves.
 
Last edited:
seb said:
So


So do you feel safer now with the proliferation of guns and assault weapons now in the hands of civilians? The NRA wants you to believe that the more people having guns will make you safer, when the opposite is actually the case. How many of these senseless shootings have to take place before something is done? Is the number 100 dead? 200, 300? What is the number that will finally get something done? One other purpose of government is to protect us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

I would feel safer without all this governemnt. It is not more control we need as a people. Over 3000 dead for boxcutters and airplanes and I still do not see a need for all the controls slapped on people and freedoms lost. It is not laws we need to change ... this is an issue of ideologies. How does laws change them? Unless you are all for removing the first as well... yet still will not change anything
 
It is impossible to repeal Second Amendment but they could neutralize Second Amendment by appoint the judge in federal court so they could strike pro-gun laws down and open a door for citizens to sue the gun manufacturers or gun dealers for all gun related tragic events.

It is similar to religious people's attempt to outlaw the abortion by overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Jezie said:
people will happily enslave their self for the facade of saftey
Click to expand...

Jezie said:
There is already that slickly little law about not killing
Click to expand...

Jezie said:
how many laws need to get written before people figure out it is not laws that help? Laws only guide those willing to follow them...
Click to expand...
Hotdog! I like this Jezie person. I endorse everything she says on this thread and I consider her my official 2A spokesperson.
 
Cappy said:
Hotdog! I like this Jezie person. I endorse everything she says on this thread and I consider her my official 2A spokesperson.
Click to expand...
You give me too much credit... but thank you for the kind words :)
 
Jezie said:
You give me too much credit... but thank you for the kind words :)
Click to expand...
You are very welcome. You do get all the credit, from me at least. You saved me alot of typing and headaches. This 2A bashing is pitiful and tiring.
 
Jezie said:
Laws help how? There is already that slickly little law about not killing... also the one about discharging firearms within buildings or in city limits... oh and that one about holding people against their will... how many laws need to get written before people figure out it is not laws that help? Laws only guide those willing to follow them...
Click to expand...

So you sound like your in favor of people being allowed to buy high capacity clips for their assault weapons, being able to buy basically a machine gun, carry box knives, guns, clubs, etc. on airplanes. While we're at it how about letting employers pay their workers 25 cents an hour and work 80 hour work weeks? Drive our cars however we want to and at any speed? Without laws, we have kaos or anarchy. Yes, laws can go too far, but if something causes great harm to us, we have to take measures to stop it and if the person or industry causing the harm does nothing to fix the problem or won't police themselves, the state has to step in and do it for them.
 
Last edited:
Foxrac said:
It is impossible to repeal Second Amendment but they could neutralize Second Amendment by appoint the judge in federal court so they could strike pro-gun laws down and open a door for citizens to sue the gun manufacturers or gun dealers for all gun related tragic events.

It is similar to religious people's attempt to outlaw the abortion by overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

You've probably hit the nail on the head! Look what has happened to the tobacco companies once they were shown to know that their product kills people.
 
They should be charged with aiding and abetting terrorists
 
This is a dupe post from the other repeal 2A thread. (too lazy to put it all together again)

Here is a small tibit of information, for those of you wishing to gut the 2A. And take away guns. So, only the police will have guns: Supreme Court of the United States, declares: the police have NO duty to protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

Police NOT Obligated to Protect Citizens…Supreme Court Rules ‘You’re On Your Own’
http://minutemennews.com/police-not...tizens-supreme-court-rules-youre-on-your-own/


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”
 
seb said:
You've probably hit the nail on the head! Look what has happened to the tobacco companies once they were shown to know that their product kills people.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feeling about gun control laws and I don't think that ban on military guns are effective to prevent the tragic events.

The gun dealers could refuse the sale if they know that you are homicidal or motivated to kill people.
 
Cappy said:
This is a dupe post from the other repeal 2A thread. (too lazy to put it all together again)

Here is a small tibit of information, for those of you wishing to gut the 2A. And take away guns. So, only the police will have guns: Supreme Court of the United States, declares: the police have NO duty to protect you. You are responsible for your own protection.

Police NOT Obligated to Protect Citizens…Supreme Court Rules ‘You’re On Your Own’
http://minutemennews.com/police-not...tizens-supreme-court-rules-youre-on-your-own/


Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”
Click to expand...

What happen to people with mental disorders like depression are unable to own gun or psychiatrist tell them to throw guns away? They don't have option to protect themselves.
 
seb said:
So you sound like your in favor of people being allowed to buy high capacity clips for their assault weapons, being able to buy basically a machine gun, carry box knives, guns, clubs, etc. on airplanes. While were at it how about letting employers pay their workers 25 cents an hour and work 80 hour workweeks? Drive our cars however we want to and at any speed? Without laws, we have kaos or anarchy. Yes, laws can go too far, but if something causes great harm to us, we have to take measures to stop it and if the person or industry causing the harm does nothing to fix the problem or won't police themselves, the state has to step in and do it for them.
Click to expand...

If you want to know something ask, otherwise you show your rear-end... not flattering to anyone...
Banning things solve nothing you want to give up your rights, go for it. But forcing law abiding citizenso to give up theirs for a reason that stops nothing is ridiculous.
 
Jezie said:
If you want to know something ask, otherwise you show your rear-end... not flattering to anyone...
Banning things solve nothing you want to give up your rights, go for it. But forcing law abiding citizenso to give up theirs for a reason that stops nothing is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So your okay with kids getting killed at schools, at work, at clubs, etc. WOW pretty cold! I know what's coming next, if people were allowed to carry guns in the club this guy would of been stopped. Perhaps, but how many would have died before that happened? Wake up! We are living in a different world than we were 200 plus years ago! I may be showing my rear end, but you're showing your ignorance and that isn't flattering either!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top