Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
there's no evidence of these claims.
but thanks for being stupid.
They're your posts, son. You've left dozens of hateful post implying violence against those you hate.
there's no evidence of these claims.
but thanks for being stupid.
They're your posts, son. You've left dozens of hateful post implying violence against those you hate.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.
They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.
And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.
The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.
America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."
The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.
We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.
It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.
What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?
^^^ Hates Jews and African-Americans.
Fredo's end game:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, a lot of people think the purpose of the 2nd is so that the government will fear the people who are armed and capable of revolt.
They think it is sort of a check and balance to prevent the government from getting too powerful, that if the people are armed and might decide to take up arms against the government if the government gets out of hand, that government will be limited.
And that would be totally wrong. That is not the purpose of the 2nd at all.
The purpose of the 2nd was to defend the USA.
America was very fearful of a standing army that the government could use against the people (because that is exactly what Britain did.) The reasoning was that America would have no standing army. The Constitution says so:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ..."
The 2nd amendment would allow people to be armed so that if the country needed to raise an army for defense it could quickly do so. That's why it says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is nothing about armed people standing up to government. It is about the security of the nation, the free State.
We live in a different world than when this was written. We definitely need a standing army. We figured that out in WWII. That means the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. There is no well-regulated militia ensuring the security of the Free State. Our military powers do that.
It is time to replace the second with a more modern establishment of gun ownership. And yes, we do need to infringe on the right to own a gun. Because too many people are getting killed.
What the language of a new amendment might be, I don't know. But I wonder if it is so popular with the public that something be done about the mass shootings, and Congress is not acting, that a well worded amendment abolishing the 2nd and replacing it with something more appropriate might pass in enough States to ratify it?
They're your posts, son. You've left dozens of hateful post implying violence against those you hate.
Dutchy, at times violence is necessary. It's a fact of life.
Translation: Sometimes it's necessary to blow up a Federal Daycare Center.
Disagreed, Matt.
You better give that translator a whack or 2, comrade.
He might be trying to protect his family from like..invading niggers and things like that, you commie POS shill.
Fuck you and all leftists! Bring it, fuckers! Please! Give me a fucking excuse!
That one may not know. Here? It's niggers. Plain and simple. Niggers and hood rats. I'm pissed! I went to go to the store and they were closing because they're rioting across town. I keel them! Grah!
God Bless America, so we went to the fru-fru store where the purple hairs and skinny-jean/man-bun people go with masks on and I got some New England Clam chowder and an organic rotisserie chicken.
All restrictions should be off today. w00t! w00t!
I saw 2 people virtue-signaling in the parking lot.
Bolsheviks were elite ruling jews in communist Russia, dumbass.
Translation: I'm just a keyboard kommando, not a real terrorist.
Understood and agreed, Matt.
Once nukes are sold to the public in TX, Greg Abbott will remove the waiting period and drop the legal age to purchase to 18.
Hello Lurch,
Only if that's what the NRA wants. But they are controlled by gun manufacturers, not nuke mfrs.
And we know that is the only thing preventing tactical nuke sales at age 18 in Texas.
Hello Lurch,
Only if that's what the NRA wants. But they are controlled by gun manufacturers, not nuke mfrs.
And we know that is the only thing preventing tactical nuke sales at age 18 in Texas.
Agreed on government. It's stated very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of our Constitution.
Your idea of deciding what rights people should have is going backwards, ma'am, not forward. That's the same logic used to ban abortion and gay marriage.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
----------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Companies, like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, just acquire any competition.. so pretty soon, Winchester nukes will be on the shelf for all to buy!!!!
Hello Dutch,
OK that's good. You've used the founding documents to support your point. Now let me select a few quotes that support mine.
"the consent of the governed, --- to effect their Safety and Happiness."
That's the thing. When the people are ready for change, we should have it.
The people are ready. If it wasn't for the NRA we would be able to move ahead to effect our safety.
Every time this happens there is a spike of support for stronger gun control laws. After the spike, the level of support drops back down but it never really drops as low as it was before. Overall, the level of support for doing something grows.
It is only logical to assume if that continues a point will be reached when the country actually does something.
I, and millions of other Americans, support that.
Hello Lurch,
Don't give them ideas.
Way to bring irrelevant quotes from riot day into the equation, fucktard!
This is why I never give you too much slack on your leash, it's because you're a fucking idiot and that's a known factor in dealing with you.
If you are going to be responsible with a gun then you should be able to have one.
How do we do that and not have any more of these tragedies?
Make mental health checks a routine part of our society. It requires both a change to healthcare and also legislation on what to do about those who are having problems.
What's really important, IMO, is that not only should there be a mechanism to take away rights, but also one to restore them. Political fanatics often push taking away a person's rights but most rarely equally support returning them.
An example are the "Red Flag" laws. Another are convicted felons who have served their sentences.