Time To Dump The Second Amendment?

[Dutch Uncle]

Come and get 'em, you communist bitch.

Is that how you talk about your mother?

 

[RB 60]

Is that how you talk about your mother?

No, fuckwit.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, fuckwit.

Soooo...only all old mothers/grandmothers you disagree with? Would you be upset if someone addressed your mother that way, RB?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Me too. I think at least 90% of Americans would be against gun confiscation.

Notice this at the bottom which is the same priority the Democratic party puts on mental health care: Would you vote for or against a law that would -- Increase government spending for mental health programs for young people?
79% vote for, 18% vote against

I'm guessing the number voting for would be higher now. Will Congress support it?

Ya know Republicans talk about that every time there is a mass shooting. And they never once lifted a finger to do anything about it. Have the government ensure that the people are provided better health care in any way? Preposterous! It goes against the grain for Republicans to have the government do ANYTHING for the people.

On that they are really all talk, zero action.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

True. What is also true is that the right of self-defense is an unalienable right. Disarming the public is W-R-O-N-G. Promising to defend them but, instead, dominating them and not defending them is W-R-O-N-G.

The police, fire department and ambulances are over 20 minutes away from me. Why do you want to disarm me? I'm a retired Naval officer and a responsible citizen. Why do you insist I be rendered completely helpless to defend myself?

I am advocating for a right to responsible gun ownership, not a conditionless one. The Second is out of date, too vague and it does not allow infringing on the right of a crazy hateful aggressive deranged dangerous emotional wreck of a person to own a gun. It sets no conditions or really any chance of them.

Our national concerns are different now. We are not so concerned about having a standing army decide to take over our homes or steal our things and supplies. Now, mass shootings of innocent people are a bigger concern. And really the thousands of individual shootings and suicides which take more lives than attention-getting mass shootings.

We can't just expect to take away assault weapons and solve the whole problem. And so far, we can't even do that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,



Ya know Republicans talk about that every time there is a mass shooting. And they never once lifted a finger to do anything about it. Have the government ensure that the people are provided better health care in any way? Preposterous! It goes against the grain for Republicans to have the government do ANYTHING for the people.

On that they are really all talk, zero action.

Agreed and the Democrats never pushed it because they were more interested in pissing up a rope with their gun-ban grandstanding. Result? NO CHANGE.

Again, as the wise man knows; it's insane to keep repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result. Flank attack instead of frontal assault is better in this scenario.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,



I am advocating for a right to responsible gun ownership, not a conditionless one. The Second is out of date, too vague and it does not allow infringing on the right of a crazy hateful aggressive deranged dangerous emotional wreck of a person to own a gun. It sets no conditions or really any chance of them.

Our national concerns are different now. We are not so concerned about having a standing army decide to take over our homes or steal our things and supplies. Now, mass shootings of innocent people are a bigger concern. And really the thousands of individual shootings and suicides which take more lives than attention-getting mass shootings.

We can't just expect to take away assault weapons and solve the whole problem. And so far, we can't even do that.

I'm a responsible gun owner yet you want to deprive me of ownership rights.

Good luck repealing the Second Amendment but, again, I think you are wasting your time and only driving a greater wedge between Americans by advocating the idea.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

I'm a responsible gun owner yet you want to deprive me of ownership rights.

Good luck repealing the Second Amendment but, again, I think you are wasting your time and only driving a greater wedge between Americans by advocating the idea.

I never said I want to deprive you of ownership rights.

But if we don't see some kind of flexibility which allows meaningful change in this ongoing tragedy that is what it is coming to.

Keeping a part of our Constitution which is outdated says something about us. I don't think it is very impressive around the rest of the world. And it's killing us.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Hello Dutch,



I never said I want to deprive you of ownership rights.

But if we don't see some kind of flexibility which allows meaningful change in this ongoing tragedy that is what it is coming to.

Keeping a part of our Constitution which is outdated says something about us. I don't think it is very impressive around the rest of the world. And it's killing us.

You'll get no argument from dutch. he's a traitor like you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,

I never said I want to deprive you of ownership rights.

But if we don't see some kind of flexibility which allows meaningful change in this ongoing tragedy that is what it is coming to.

Keeping a part of our Constitution which is outdated says something about us. I don't think it is very impressive around the rest of the world. And it's killing us.

Dear Ms. Poli; you're going after innocent gun owners and treating them as suspects at best, criminals at worst.

 

[Into the Night]

"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?

The right of self defense is inherent. No government can take that away, no matter how oppressive. The 2nd amendment prohibits the federal government and the States from attempting to infringe on that right. There is no conditional. You are attempting to change the 2nd amendment.

 

[RB 60]

Soooo...only all old mothers/grandmothers you disagree with? Would you be upset if someone addressed your mother that way, RB?

What the fuck are you talking about, you putrid degenerate pervert? You already know that answer. Now fuck off, coward.

 

[Into the Night]

The US doesn't need a massive standing army. There is no nation on the planet that could successfully invade the US and there are none on the horizon. The only reason the US would need a large standing army is to go fuck in other nation's business, and 98% of the time we shouldn't have to be the ones doing that.

A valid point, that.

As far as a "Well regulated militia" goes, there are actually two in terms of law:

The organized militia that exists today as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia that exists as the people and in wartime as the Army of the United States. That is different from the United States Army.

Not quite. A militia is an army. The National Guard is indeed a militia, for the federal government. The States can also form militias. The one in Washington currently has 75 members, which are administrative staff and no fighting men. State militias are also organized. A militia is an organized (regular) body of men. Remember, the British troops were often called 'regulars' for a reason.

The Army of the United States is the citizenry-at-large.

Not an army. Not organized as an army or a militia.

In modern history, the way they are called to service is through the draft.

They were then trained and incorporated into an organized army.

But at least through the Spanish-American war, the AUSA also called up units by subscription. That is, someone with money and or political clout would raise a private unit of volunteers for service as part of the military. Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders was such a unit. In the Civil War, a unit like that was Wilder's Lightning Brigade.

They were then trained and incorporated into an organized army. Those units were NOT the citizens, although they were made up of citizens.

So, it is at least theoretically possible that in a future major war a rich and powerful personality could fund and outfit a unit for US military service with volunteers paid in part from that person's pocket. That is the unorganized militia.

No. That is an organized militia.

The 2nd amendment again:

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.

This discusses TWO related rights, not one. Both are about the inherent right of self defense.

* The right of a State to defend itself, using a well regulated (organized) militia. An army.
* The right of an individual to defend himself, by keeping and bearing Arms. That means ANY weapon.

Neither right shall be infringed.

The 2nd amendment does apply to the States. It always has.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What the fuck are you talking about, you putrid degenerate pervert?

You already know that answer. Now fuck off, coward.

Your hypocrisy and misogyny, RB.

Yes, the answer is you are a hypocrite who has no problem calling other people's mothers communist bitch or cunt but become unglued at any perceived slights against your own mother. That's a completely hypocritical and fucked-up attitude on your part, RB.

My advice to you is to unfuck yourself so you can enjoy a better life. Only you can do it, RB. Nobody can make you.

Examples:

Come and get 'em, you communist bitch.

Incompetent lying cunt.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/us/seattle-may-day-protests/index.html

There ya go, you waste of flesh, arrogant, mindless cunt.

...says the lying, deceitful, scum of the earth, Goddess of hypocrisy cunt.

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

I would not be surprised at all if that figure is higher now.

Events make opinion go up and down. Mass murders have not usually involved handguns.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Events make opinion go up and down. Mass murders have not usually involved handguns.

But MOST have. Dylann Roof and Seung-Hui Cho are two famous examples. Because of the lies about gun control coming from the Democrats and their proponents, is there any doubt that banning handguns is on their to-do list?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Dear Ms. Poli; you're going after innocent gun owners and treating them as suspects at best, criminals at worst.

Innocents?

Innocents are being slaughtered. Lives are more important than possessions.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,



Innocents?

Innocents are being slaughtered.

Lives are more important than possessions.

Yes, and I've offered a prime path to protect innocents, including the mentally ill people committing these crimes and the 50,000 others who take their own lives every year but all you want to do is attack innocent people simply because they own a gun.

Agreed lives are more important than possessions. Do you seriously support the idea of banning cars, swimming pools and any sports where people can get hurt? Because that's exactly the path you are choosing to take.

Find a path to protects rights and innocent lives. IMO, that path is better mental health care, not repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Dutch,

Yes, and I've offered a prime path to protect innocents, including the mentally ill people committing these crimes and the 50,000 others who take their own lives every year but all you want to do is attack innocent people simply because they own a gun.

Agreed lives are more important than possessions. Do you seriously support the idea of banning cars, swimming pools and any sports where people can get hurt? Because that's exactly the path you are choosing to take.

Find a path to protects rights and innocent lives. IMO, that path is better mental health care, not repeating the mistakes of the past.

A place where every individual has all their basic needs met including food, safety and health care; - sounds a whole lot better than a place where every individual is completely on their own, and some have so much power they are able to greedily prevent many from even having basic needs met.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Hello Dutch,

A place where every individual has all their basic needs met including food, safety and health care; - sounds a whole lot better than a place where every individual is completely on their own, and some have so much power they are able to greedily prevent many from even having basic needs met.

Be careful what you ask for, Ms. Poli. Actions have consequences. While human nature is malleable within a range, it's also very set within physical and mental limitations history proves over all of known human history.

BTW, have you ever seen the movie THX 1138? It's a very dystopian movie made by a very young George Lucas. There's a reason why I chose it as the model for a Democratic utopia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138

THX 1138 is a 1971 American social science fiction film directed by George Lucas in his feature film directorial debut. It is set in a dystopian future in which the populace is controlled through android police and mandatory use of drugs that suppress emotions. Produced by Francis Ford Coppola and written by Lucas and Walter Murch, it stars Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasence.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066434/