I'm a big supporter of the second amendment but if that amendment is defined by this hate group they call a party or the NRA, we would be a lot better off not having the second Amendment. There is no way in hell that the NRA and Gun Bubbas perception and opinion of the second was even close to why our forefathers put in the 2nd in the constitution. In fact if they knew how it would be misinterpreted by these brain dead, they would apose the 2nd themselves.
By far the biggest threat to the 2nd is right wingers with the NRA leading the pack.
- Thread starter jbander
- Start date
BidenPresident
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
The NRA is not a hate group. NRA is not 'gun bubbas'. Bigotry. The NRA does not define or redefine the 2nd amendment.
This amendment discusses two inherent rights, both related, not one.
1) The right of a State to defend itself...as a State. It does this by raising militias (or armies) made up of the people of that State.
2) The right of the individual to defend himself and his interests. This is the right of the people.
The 2nd amendment does not specify type of weapon, type of action, magazine, size, length of barrel, type or color of stock, size of ammunition, method of construction, length of blade, etc. It means ANY weapon.
Into the Night
Verified User
Since the rights discussed in the 2nd amendment are inherent, you cannot just ignore it. You simply do not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Such a big defender, I should add, that this fellow would eliminate the 2nd in order to save it.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
It would also fare better without you. I hear Europe still exists.
BidenPresident
Verified User
Fuck you.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Why? There are many nations that have very strict gun control yet experience massive crime, social unrest, and even gun violence. Look at Mexico. Mexico gun laws are very restrictive and it is very difficult for a citizen to legally own a firearm, particularly a pistol. Yet, Mexico is overrun with gun violence and criminal activity. So, how would the US benefit from not having a 2nd Amendment?
BidenPresident
Verified User
Mexico is a failed state. Corrupt. Nothing like the US.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Maybe without the 2nd Amendment we'd be like Mexico...
BidenPresident
Verified User
The drug gangs have lots of weapon. Like I said, Mexico has nothing in common with the US.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
And, where'd they get those since they didn't buy them in Mexico. The point to that is, regardless of Mexico's strong gun laws criminals have acquired lots of firearms they need to carry out their crimes with.
Thus, the abolition of the Second Amendment would do little or nothing for the US in terms of crime. Criminals would still be armed while the law abiding citizenry would be disarmed. How does that make anything better?
BidenPresident
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Okay, but note the difference. You never gave a scintilla of evidence to support your position, while I did. So, while you can hold the position on the Second you do, your lack of persuasive support for it doesn't bode well for your convincing anyone else to accept it.
BidenPresident
Verified User
I never for a moment tried to persuade you of anything. Truly.
Wrong, the NRA is always “defining and redefining” the Second Amendment, review their literature, they offer NRA interpretations of everything
Wrong again, your interpretation of “militia” is your interpretation of “militia,” also the interpretation of the NRA, remember those guys you said don’t define the Second Amendment. Fact, no Supreme Court in the history of the country has been able to define what the Founders meant by “militia,” even the Roberts Court, who in the Heller case simply skipped over it per Scalia’s influence
And please, don’t return with your “natural rights” BS in return
Into the Night
Verified User
He would eliminate the Constitution to 'save it'.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope. They never have.
Void argument fallacy. Provide an example.
Nope. A militia is an army raised from the citizens of a State.
The federal militia is called the National Guard. Each State can also have a militia to defend that State. Washington, for example, has a current membership of 75 people in its militia (since it's not in active status).
The NRA doesn't redefine 'militia'. They hardly even mention them, since they are about the right of the individual, not the State.
They don't.
The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
Irrelevant. The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States.
I certainly will. The right of self defense is inherent. It does not come from a piece of paper or any court.
Under the circumstances, so would our founding fathers , if they knew that the massive buildup of Guns and ammo was being taking in by a group that just tried to destroy our democracy and country to force in a piece of shit for a dictator , there would be no second. This group is this countries biggest threat and enemy and that really can't be argued.
The problem is the group of traitors that are buying all the guns. We just watched them at their best trying to destroy this country and democracy.