OH… I am so hurt … your comments are so cutting sometimes… not…
as I said…
I’m way late reading this. But is this a real person saying these things?
Does that include Hillary’s body guards?
thanks. I’ll bet you’re a pretty cool person. That person seemed deranged.
But all joking aside, I’d like to think the average person will thoughtfully consider what losing their second amendment rights really means. Before they lose the right to have an opinion.
Or to have a gun. and good luck getting that freedom back (that you never appreciated) after you lose it.
I’m a gun owner. Not your typical gun owner by any means. I’m tall and blond and own a ballet school. But because I have a gun and know how to use it, I feel safe and secure in my environment as a single woman.
Sorry that was so long. I’m probably getting kicked off here soon.
The lack of critical thinking skills by the left is astounding.
Just ask how would they go about collecting guns? A door to door search? Think the criminal element, gangs, cartels would gladly give up their firearms? Think everyone will voluntarily turn in their firearms? How would the government compensate people for turning in their firearms? How about people licensed to carry firearms? Imagine a armored truck guard with out a firearm. Imagine our much loved politicians with guards with a knife or night stick.
No. No one is going to voluntarily “turn in” their guns. Unless they are offered a lot of money. And the fact is that there are already so many people who have guns in this country, legally, illegally or whatever, that it can’t be undone. You’re right. No ones going street to street collecting people’s guns. Ever.
I’d like to not get into the left versus the right. I try really hard to look at each issue on its own. While recognizing the corruption and lying of Hillary clinton
Ha! Well played! Hillary Clinton clearly sets the bar on what wrong looks like.
I’m revisiting this topic again because no one has come up with a single good reason for not banning guns in the United States. I’ll breakdown the points from what I’ve heard here and elsewhere.
Self defense is not a good reason, if guns were illegal nobody would have a gun to attack you with so you would not need a gun for self defense. also you are far more likely to accidentally kill yourself or a family member with a gun than to use it for self defense. owning a gun is simply not a good idea.
Target shooting is not a good reason, saving 30,000 lives is far more important than rednecks having fun shooting targets
Stopping an oppressive government is not a good reason. Please stop with your red dawn fantasies. How is a rifle going to help you when an AC 130 is firing 105mm cannon rounds at you from 8,000 feet in the air?
Hunting is not a good reason. It’s 2016, nobody needs to hunt for food anymore. Hunting is cruel to the animals who die a painful and frightening death. Also hunting is terrible for endangered species like wolves and grizzly bears.
Saying that gun control would not cut down on gun deaths is not a legit reason. Gun control has already proven to be successful in America. Automatic weapons were banned in 1986 and today practically nobody is killed by a fully automatic weapon.
Citing the second amendment is not a good reason. Presser v. Illinois (1886) ruled that individual States do have the right to regulate gun ownership.
Saying that America is a democracy is not a good reason. Keeping guns legal is actually directly opposing the will of the people. Most people in America want stricter gun regulations and the only reason no significant laws have been passed is that the NRA has spent billions of dollars lobbying against gun regulations.
Please, someone make an attempt to argue your way out of this.
*Name your source for your statistics. For if firearms were never invented, man would still kill man.
*Using your statistic, just over 8,000 were homicides, the vast majority ( over 19,000 ) were suicides. Also, Your use of “rednecks having fun shooting targets” is highly offensive and incorrect. 80% of gun violence is black on black.
Over 300 million firearms and The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Moreover, the VAST majority of active duty components and veterans would never commit to bringing violence upon the very people they swore to protect ( I would know )
You are unintelligent
*We are a constitutional republic and again, I would love to see your statistics.
Have fun darlin’
Just one question. How do you get the thousands of guns that are ALREADY OUT THERE off the streets?
"And if guns were illegal no one would have a gun."
You said that.
So is that like saying "if drugs were illegal no one would do drugs?
For those who wish to amend the Constitution to get rid of their Second Amendment Rights, here is a new amendment to consider bringing to your Congressman:
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of Gunz’nAmmo within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for any purpose is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
The un-watered down version of the Second Amendment goes like this…
- That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
The government is not to be trusted. Civilians should be armed to protect themselves from the government.
Beyond the political realities of the election outcome, I’ll start by offering two reasons.
First would be the fact that most original states made their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon a bill of rights being transmitted to them (which they then individually ratified). Would it create a constitutional crisis if a few of the original states decided to denounce / rescind their ratification of the constitution because some states wanted to cut and dice the bill of rights? IOW,could the original constitution’s ratification be called into question if original states decided to pull-out? This argument would allow one to say the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are untouchable and permanent . . . That they are of such foundational nature that no amendment can remove them. Marbury v Madison could be read to endorse this line of reasoning . . .
Second would be the fact that the 2nd does not grant / create / give or otherwise establish the right to arms so editing or even rescinding the words would do nothing to the right itself. The new amendment would need to be worded in a way that creates / establishes / grants new power to the federal government where none exists and there would be heated debate and great resistance from the states. You would never get 38 states to agree to surrender any power that would impact their citizens in such dramatic fashion – citizens (and their personal arms) that most states have called out as specifically protected. Additionally, the wording of many state constitutions expressly forbid such an action, excepting out of the delegated powers of the legislature the power to revisit the rights of their citizens and surrender them so power can be transferred to the federal government.
Really, it is incomprehensible . . .
You are skipping over a large segment of legal opinion on the RKBA / 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has always endorsed the individual right / private ownership interpretation(Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Lewis, Heller). Starting in 1942, lower federal courts purposely diverged from the Supreme Court dismissing / ignoring the High Court and instead inserting the “state’s right” and “militia right” perversions into federal law.
Scalia in Heller did not break new ground, all Heller did was slap those lower courts back into the constitutional fold by reaffirming the individual right and invalidating the various “collective right” interpretations.
As for your quote of Heller, your side always over reads parts of it and fails to recognize / understand what it -in totality- actually says.
And as far as the link you provide for support, that is a ridiculous article that begins with utter absurities and never gets better.
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns
Absolutely correct – does not grant anything!
Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns?
No . . . because neither the 2nd Amendment or Heller “gives” me the right to own guns.
Please explain how (and justify why) you take words that the right to arms in no manner depends upon, and invent a myriad of conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right from those words.
Please understand that question is based in a sourced / supported legal argument, not an emotional one.
Funny how the connection between that assertion and the fact that the Constitution is the document that bestows the right to begin with is never made. Good read.