"Stop Hiding Behind the Second Amendment"

He knows it, hes just whining about it because that's all he can do. Wouldn't it be great to have a time machine to travel back to show the forefathers some of these guys posts? Im pretty sure they would send us back (constitution unchanged) with the advice to tell them to (*)(*)(*)(*) off!

 

nope; just y'all appealing to ignorance of the law as a form of moral turpitude.

 

Good GRIEF! This is dumb on a level I didn't think possible. "WE THE PEOPLE" not WE THE INDIVIDUALS.
Here I will illustrate how full of (*)(*)(*)(*) you are. According to you, you are not people and therefore have no right to post your thoughts here. Do you agree or will you post again and prove your ideology wrong? Youll post again and prove me correct.

 

LOL

I can just imagine an irked Madison saying, just grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up people! (And by people, he would be referring to us in a plural sense, as individuals. )

 

Maybe you could learn something about English.

 

I think that what was once 'clear' and readily applicable... can/does change over time. In every era, fresh amendments will be required.

 

Yeah that's whining. Here, there are millions and millions of armed people in the United States who will never allow you to disarm them. Other than continue to whine, tell us your master plan to disarm us?

 

Now, do you mean "y'all" as a group of individuals?

By the way, I legally own a gun, in California, so it seems the Second Amendment is closer to MY view than yours.

 

i don't think so; i believe our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our supreme law of the land. There is No Thing that is ambiguous at all.

 

So, everyone else is ignorant because you don't understand the second amendment. Got it.

 

projecting much; simply appealing to the masses doesn't make y'all any more right.

 

Yes. None of us may be around, but we do know that change is inevitable.

I know well that amending the U.S. Constitution is a massive task/procedure. Even so, time leads to changes/occurrences we cannot imagine today. I believe it is highly possible for the 2nd Amendment (even the nation as a whole) to change significantly (in time). And I'm willing to share ideas and plant seeds, leading toward change... though I won't likely see them in my lifetime.

 

Nope, I think I have it down pat. No one agrees with you including SCOTUS so you think you are right. Time to get a clue.

 

You post and post and say nothing. Save us all time and from now on......
[video=youtube;_O-QqC9yM28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28[/video]

 

Weapons technology and the shape of the threats we face have changed enough over time. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, does need to be reviewed.

I heard and read experts say otherwise. (So, that's a big debate that is hardly complete.)

 

You appear to long for a more authoritarian state. Beware of what you wish for.

 

You know, I would have said the same thing about Same Sex Marriage 10 years ago, so you never know how the views of the people can change.

 

Well, I disagree. (The discussion will continue.)

 

Yeah, you could say that the 2nd amendment is the citizen's defense against some tyrannical regime with its own army. They (the Founders) wanted to make sure we citizens were tough as nails and ready to defend the Constitution against any aggressor.

Everyone had a gun even before that amendment was written. That's who fought in U.S. Revolution against Britian. Mostly citizen militias like the Regulators who were a band of multi-ethnic Christian groups that banded together Regulator Movement in mid-eighteenth-century North Carolina was a rebellion initiated by residents of the colony's inland region, or backcountry, who believed that royal government officials were charging them excessive fees, falsifying records, and engaging in other mistreatments.


http://ncpedia.org/history/colonial/regulator-movement

There you have it...basically (residents, land owners, citizens) who were individually armed and capable of defending their ground. IOW, people with guns that could fight for their rights against a repressive government (England at that time) Back then an armed populace was assumed because people had to use guns to get food, protect against predators, etc and, the 2nd amendment not only supported a citizen's right to own guns but to also demanded a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. in the form of participating in an organized force (militia) to defend itself against all enemies foreign and domestic.

That is how America came to be...The power of a new governmental structure (Constitution) with no theology or royalty. Backed by the power of weaponry carried by every citizen and the know how to use those weapons to effectively defend aggressors.

 

Well, whether fast/slower... I'm certain that things can/will change.

 

You think the forefathers were talking about a government organized militia, the very govt the referenced militia was supposed to stand against if it becomes tyrannical? You know what it doesn't matter, the second amendment is NEVER EVER going away. If you don't like guns your only option is to leave. By now you should have been smart enough to have figured out that a group of disarmed people can never disarm a group of armed people who don't wish to be disarmed. That's a life lesson in why you should never cede your freedoms in the first place.

 

Ya, I'd be for 'freshining' the 2nd amendment to add verbiage to absolutely REQUIRE all citizens to be armed and willing to lay down their lives to fight against any tyrannical government that took over. No ifs ands or buts. BTW the weapons our military has and uses are OURS. We PAID for them. If an army turned on the populace, then We The People would have the right to take them back......unless we rescind the 2nd amendment.

 

only those who are full of fallacy don't agree with me; and that includes You.

- - - Updated - - -

nothing but diversion and continuance?

 

And SCOTUS and the liberal 9th court. Go figure. You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

Either way, time to clear it up. We won't all get tactical nukes, chemical weapons and air superiority. If they (likely the wealthy) want the masses dead, we will be. As for personal self defense, that makes sense to me overall.