If you enjoy your constitutional rights don't vote for Hillary.

[TurtleDude]

That's one hell of a jump and not a reasonable one. Not sure what I was expecting though.

well stop playing coy. What do you think the second amendment does and what do you want in terms of gun control

I read the second amendment and the tenth amendment together and find that there is no proper power for the federal government to regulate or restrict what sort of individual arms individual citizens can keep and bear, acquire or own. The second amendment does not cease to prevent government action after a certain number of rounds in a gun, how fast the firearm can fire or based on how many other firearms you own, have bought or can buy

 

[TurtleDude]

I would not tell the country hey change it to "blah blah blah" I would want us to go through our legal process and hear from the citizens and leaders of our country and come up with the collective idea that fits our current Technology and ideas from the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in other words, you don't believe in a guaranteed right but you think the "right" should be based on what the majority wants at a given period of time

 

[CivicED]

Your post is completely nonsensical.

I accept your surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CivicED]

in other words, you don't believe in a guaranteed right but you think the "right" should be based on what the majority wants at a given period of time

It hasn't been a guaranteed right for a long time. So yes the majority need to get together an updated to the given period of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

I accept your surrender.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's no surrender. Give up the drugs, they're affecting your perception of reality.

You're the one to say you want to change the second amendment. To what ends if not to restrict further from the People the right o keep and bear arms. My comment stands, the only situation in which the right to keep and bear arms should be further restricted is if the government is held to the same restrictions.

But please, don't let that stop you from making nonsensical arguments or declaring yourself winner like Trump.

 

[Harshaw]

It hasn't been a guaranteed right for a long time.

Oh, this should be good. When WAS it a guaranteed right, and when, specifically, did that change?

So yes the majority need to get together an updated to the given period of time.

To do what?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

what would those rights be?

Just for starters, appropriately enough, our First Amendment rights. He is on record saying when he is President he wants to open up libel laws to make it easier for politicians to sue those who write negative things about them.

 

[matchlight]

Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity

.

What do you mean by "rewritten?" The process is called amendment, and it is not something any president takes part in. Of course for leftists who don't give a good G--damn about the Constitution, there is always the handy, illegitimate shortcut of having enough like-minded justices appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret this or that part of the Constitution out of existence. That's just what the result would be, if some future Court simply adopted the position Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion in Heller.

 

[CivicED]

There's no surrender. Give up the drugs, they're affecting your perception of reality.

You're the one to say you want to change the second amendment. To what ends if not to restrict further from the People the right o keep and bear arms. My comment stands, the only situation in which the right to keep and bear arms should be further restricted is if the government is held to the same restrictions.

But please, don't let that stop you from making nonsensical arguments or declaring yourself winner like Trump.

You believe the second amendment is written well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CivicED]

Oh, this should be good. When WAS it a guaranteed right, and when, specifically, did that change?



To do what?

When it was first created, it was a guaranteed right. And I guess I'll just go with the 1930s national fire arms act. But maybe some other legislation infringed before that.

To stop democrats from wasting taxpayer money I'm trying to pass gun reform that will do nothing to prevent gun violence because of the amount of guns already in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

When it was first created, it was a guaranteed right. And I guess I'll just go with the 1930s national fire arms act. But maybe some other legislation infringed before that.

To stop democrats from wasting taxpayer money I'm trying to pass gun reform that will do nothing to prevent gun violence because of the amount of guns already in this country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In your first paragraph, you're basically claiming that any restriction on a right means it's no longer guaranteed. Which is, of course, silly.

In your second paragraph, you did not describe what you'd rewrite the 2A into. That's what I was after.

 

[CivicED]

.

What do you mean by "rewritten?" The process is called amendment, and it is not something any president takes part in. Of course for leftists who don't give a good G--damn about the Constitution, there is always the handy, illegitimate shortcut of having enough like-minded justices appointed to the Supreme Court to interpret this or that part of the Constitution out of existence. That's just what the result would be, if some future Court simply adopted the position Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion in Heller.

I think it would be a great experiment in self governance.

The process is:

(Article V of the Constitution)

So, 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the states propose the amendment, then 3/4 of the states have to approve it.

They just might be able to come up with something that works after such a process, but it would have to have enormous support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CivicED]

In your first paragraph, you're basically claiming that any restriction on a right means it's no longer guaranteed. Which is, of course, silly.

In your second paragraph, you did not describe what you'd rewrite the 2A into. That's what I was after.

OK then why did they make the national firearms act a tax to prevent them from getting the weapons. Why not just say those weapons are not allowed?

I wouldn't just say "blah blah blah" and make that my second amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you should try thinking more deeply about such things?

 

[CivicED]

Maybe you should try thinking more deeply about such things?

Elaborate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harshaw]

OK then why did they make the national firearms act a tax to prevent them from getting the weapons. Why not just say those weapons are not allowed?

I wouldn't just say "blah blah blah" and make that my second amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your questions in your first paragraph make no sense.

I didn't ask you what you wouldn't do. I asked you what you would do. Do you even have anything in mind, at all? Or are you just saying it needs to change, but you have no idea to what?

 

[CivicED]

Your questions in your first paragraph make no sense.

I didn't ask you what you wouldn't do. I asked you what you would do. Do you even have anything in mind, at all? Or are you just saying it needs to change, but you have no idea to what?

The national firearms act in the 1930s restricted weapons by making them taxed so absurdly for that time period people could not afford them. So my question is why not just outlaw them then? You can't outlawed them because firearm means any gun right? Or could the government decide fire arm only means muskets?

And after the government went through the right democratic process to change it, if I got to vote on it I would vote for the most open type of letting us own any gun man can make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

It hasn't been a guaranteed right for a long time. So yes the majority need to get together an updated to the given period of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in 1934, FDR raped the tenth and second amendments so he could pander to some low wattage yappers who were whining about a government created disease-bootlegger violence. A lapdog court sort of went along with his unconstitutional power grab and further supported that power grab with one of the most idiotic decisions in history, the infamous Wickard decision in the early days of the war. The sheeple were too concerned about the war to worry about all the unconstitutional nonsense FDR was engaged in.

the biggest problem is-too many people think that what they want is more important than actually following the constitution. You'd be hard pressed to find a legal scholar who honestly believes that the commerce clause was intended or even written to allow government control over private citizens but many of them like the end result so they refuse to condemn the way that result was reached

 

[TurtleDude]

Just for starters, appropriately enough, our First Amendment rights. He is on record saying when he is President he wants to open up libel laws to make it easier for politicians to sue those who write negative things about them.

and Hildabeast wants to get rid of Citizens United which is a first amendment issue. She also was on record supporting an attempt to prevent the NRA from advocating that personal safety was enhanced by women owning firearms.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

and Hildabeast wants to get rid of Citizens United which is a first amendment issue. She also was on record supporting an attempt to prevent the NRA from advocating that personal safety was enhanced by women owning firearms.

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with you and SCOTUS on Citizens United, TD. You call it free speech but it smells more like legalized bribery to me.

You are preaching to the choir about Hillary, though.

 

[TurtleDude]

I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with you and SCOTUS on Citizens United, TD. You call it free speech but it smells more like legalized bribery to me.

You are preaching to the choir about Hillary, though.

I don't think congress has ANY legitimate power to tell ANYONE how they spend their money in terms of supporting a candidate I just don't see that power in the US Constitution.

 

[RetiredUSN]

The constitution is pretty clear when it comes to what a sitting president, congress, and senate can get away with, making a corrupt and biased USSC immediately identifiable. Our rights are already teetering with some of the USSC decisions regarding privacy and other issues.

Stay tuned.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Elaborate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is the second amendment after the first, which is most important and the founders placed it second as a protection of all other rights, for the people to bear arms, to fend off tyranny. A great deterrent.

There is no need to rewrite the second amendment, it accomplishes what it needs to in present form. Amending it would open it up to more limitations, of which there are already too many.

Third, no matter what you do the with the law or an amendment, it will not stop the criminals nor the insane from obtaining guns should they truly so choose. So beyond being an exercise in total futility, it hinders the law abiding citizens from protecting their families, friends and potentially the nation, if the need ever arose from bad actors inside or out.

There are probably more but right off the top of my head those should be sufficient to cogitate upon for a bit.

 

[matchlight]

I think it would be a great experiment in self governance.

The process is:

(Article V of the Constitution)

So, 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the states propose the amendment, then 3/4 of the states have to approve it.

They just might be able to come up with something that works after such a process, but it would have to have enormous support.

I'm sure that nothing even close to the necessary support exists, or that it will any time soon. Most Americans--that is, most except for the collectivist lumps in the lumpenproletariat, who are un-American and have a taste for totalitarian rule--understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to preserving our liberties.

 

[Patrickt]

At present there are two liberal Democrats running for President and one is running as a Republican. Donald Trump has said he would keep guns away from "enemies of the state". That is a classic leftist phrase, "enemies of the state". You know. Like conservatives, Republicans, Christians, Americans. Enemies of the state like those who wrote the Constitution to restrict the power of the state. Liberals hate that.

Donald Trump has also said he would keep guns away from the mentally ill. Mentally ill? Who would that be? Veterans? Conservatives? Who could the liberal psychologists and psychiatrists declare mentally ill and unsafe?

Keep in mind when you read what Donald Trump has said lately about gun control that the lifelong Democrat has made a lot of money lying. That's something even Vladimir Putin recognizes is his one talent.