View Poll Results: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 20.00%
  • No

    59 78.67%
  • Not sure

    1 1.33%
Page 80 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290130 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 1352

Thread: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  1. #791
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by humbolt View Post
    It helps to understand that for some here, making things up is better done as an all-encompassing thing. Because I am well armed, I must be anxiously waiting for Armageddon. This passes as rational thought to some.
    I never claimed you were.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #792
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    when it comes to guns, American is 100% correct

    what have the anti gun scum in office ever promised in return for more resrictions

    what those assholes say is -we will let you keep some guns in return for banning others

    as I noted

    here is the proper compromise

    Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason

    under the 2A there is no proper reason for honest people to compromise with the control freaks
    Little in life is 100% for anything, so that in and of itself is an exaggeration.

    And exactly what has been taken away?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #793
    Advisor Willie Orwontee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cradle of Liberty (obs.)
    Last Seen
    10-07-17 @ 01:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    381

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.

    And that is the point.
    Except Congress did it in the Preamble to the articles of amendment transmitted to the states (emphasis added):



    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.



    The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment is only an inactive prefatory statement of a foundational principle.

    The restrictive clause is legally substantive (operative) and independent.

    You are violating the simple directive stated by Congress as the reason the Bill of Rights exists. You are conjuring undefined and unlimited powers from a sentence fragment that can't be argued with a straight face to have any legal operation . . .

    How does you interpretation work to extend public confidence in the federal government by adding prefatory declarations of principle and restrictive, "operative" clauses to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers?

    Guess what? It doesn't, your interpretation works directly against what the Bill of Rights is and does; your entire position is one of misconstructing the 2nd to endorse the abuse of federal powers.

    You are exactly what the Federalists warned about, "men disposed to usurp" that endeavor to twist and misconstruct the words chosen to protect the right into illegitimate powers to destroy the right.


    "I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

    Federalist 84



    Your interpretation was in the minds of the founders / framers, as something to be warned about and vigilant for its rise and fought against whenever it appears.


    .
    I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.

  4. #794
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'll post it again, because it deserves repeating. How anyone could present an argument against this is beyond me.

    J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
    [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

    [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

    [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

  5. #795
    Sage


    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,259

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I never claimed you were.
    I can easily admit I'm guilty of a lot of things. Doesn't cost me a thing in any way.

  6. #796
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along - your desire to change definitions is a back door fraud to enable bigger and more powerful weapons in the hands of the far right to prepare for the day of Armageddon when they can murder their enemies in the streets of the USA.
    anything civilian cops can use in terms of firearms other civilians should be able to own

    why do you want criminals to have the upper hand against your neighbors and fellow citizens.

    as I educated you earlier-the weapons most useful for assassination and revolution are not the same as the ones Democrats are trying to ban. You are trying to ban the best defensive weapons so its is obvious to me, the goal of the Democrats is not to protect cops from rebelling patriots but to protect criminals from their intended victims

    why do gun banners side with criminals over honest citizens?



  7. #797
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Little in life is 100% for anything, so that in and of itself is an exaggeration.

    And exactly what has been taken away?
    our right to own current state of the art infantry (militia) rifles



  8. #798
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Arrived late.

    Only to clarify and reinforce the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
    Further to clarify that the militia part was actually just the the supporting reasoning, and that the underlying reasoning was actually "so the government does not have a monopoly on deadly force."
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #799
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,271

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Even if the so called rights you murder people over are not rights you have at all. Got it loud and clear.
    The Colonists referred to them at tyrants.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #800
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

    Re: Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    The Colonists referred to them at tyrants.

    The founders certainly did not consider shooting down tyrants or their henchmen to be murder. Check out the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia

    Do you think the second amendment needs amended?-seal_virginia-jpg



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •