Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'd like to hear from the anti-2A folks what they would like to see as a result of repealing the 2nd. What does this look like to them?

Given that the bulk of them (and, frankly, the bulk of American citizens in general) are not conscious to the idea that the government does not grant rights but rather has a constitution aimed at limiting the usurpation by our government of our endowed rights, I would think they fully believe that repealing 2A would mean the ability to order the destruction of all private weapons post haste.

We have 100% right to health care - no implication that the government supplies it, but it is definitely a right.

We have 100% right to drive on roads - this is not a privilege but a full-fledged right, a right which is justifiably regulated for public safety.

We have a 100% right to watch smutty television - a right which is justifiably regulated for public safety.

We have a right to keep and bear arms - a right which is limited by the laws of using those weapons during a criminal act like murder, rape, robbery, etc.

None of these things have anything to do with the misnamed "Bill of Rights". These rights are endowed to us by our Creator. It is the government's job to not usurp these rights beyond the enumerated powers granted them in the Constitution. Too few people understand and view our government in this light. This is why people say, "show me in the Constitution where you have the right to ______."
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Indeed .. :yay:

Back in the early 80's, when I was in college, we had this guy from - I don't remember what country - but he was newly arrived to the U.S.
Everywhere we went, he walked closely near the buildings and would keep looking up.

"What are you looking for?" we asked.
"Snipers" he answered. He was under the impression that the U.S. was some kind of crazy place where you could get shot at any time.

Like I said, it's not 30's Chicago or the wild west or drunken hooligans carousing and shooting whomever they please.
The gun deaths are composed primarily from gangs and drugs and collateral damage from their behavior.
Stop the gangs, stop the drug lords, you stop most of the gun deaths.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Given that the bulk of them (and, frankly, the bulk of American citizens in general) are not conscious to the idea that the government does not grant rights but rather has a constitution aimed at limiting the usurpation by our government of our endowed rights, I would think they fully believe that repealing 2A would mean the ability to order the destruction of all private weapons post haste.

We have 100% right to health care - no implication that the government supplies it, but it is definitely a right.

We have 100% right to drive on roads - this is not a privilege but a full-fledged right, a right which is justifiably regulated for public safety.

We have a 100% right to watch smutty television - a right which is justifiably regulated for public safety.

We have a right to keep and bear arms - a right which is limited by the laws of using those weapons during a criminal act like murder, rape, robbery, etc.

None of these things have anything to do with the misnamed "Bill of Rights". These rights are endowed to us by our Creator. It is the government's job to not usurp these rights beyond the enumerated powers granted them in the Constitution. Too few people understand and view our government in this light. This is why people say, "show me in the Constitution where you have the right to ______."

This doesn't answer my question, primarily because you are not an anti-2A person. I want to know what they believe repealing the 2A will look like.
 
Last edited:

PsyOps

Pixelated
Open Warfare .... :shrug:

I think you have my question backwards. I don't want to know what it looks like for pro-2A people. :lol:

If anti-2A progressives get their way in repealing the 2nd, what do they expect to happen next? All gun dealers shut down? All shooting ranges shut down? No more gun shows? Gun confiscation? Gun manufacturers shut down, except those that make guns for our military and LE?
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Repealing the 2A would stir up a #### storm like you haven't seen since the Revolution.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This doesn't answer my question, primarily because you are not an anti-2A person. I want to know what they believe repealing the 2A will look like.

I do think they believe that taking away the restriction on government ACTUALLY means (to them) that they can then ban all guns except for government ownership, and everyone will turn in their guns, and all will be fine and good. They probably think it will take a good long while - like, weeks even - to get them all, but it will work out in the end.

Dianne Feinstein said:
Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.

We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
Dianna DeGette (D said:
"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."
724175121-24f86155_HitlerwasaLiberal.jpeg
Pres. B. H. Obama said:
“…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.”
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I've always worried that with a Progressive majority on the SCOTUS, they could weasel "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." to allow the Fed to limit civilian possession of firearms.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I've always worried that with a Progressive majority on the SCOTUS, they could weasel "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...." to allow the Fed to limit civilian possession of firearms.
If we make progressivism a capital crime it won’t matter anymore.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I do think they believe that taking away the restriction on government ACTUALLY means (to them) that they can then ban all guns except for government ownership, and everyone will turn in their guns, and all will be fine and good. They probably think it will take a good long while - like, weeks even - to get them all, but it will work out in the end.

That's my view on this too, but I still want to hear from the anti-gun types what they think repealing the 2nd looks like. What do they want out of such a move.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
That's my view on this too, but I still want to hear from the anti-gun types what they think repealing the 2nd looks like. What do they want out of such a move.

Thats the problem. It's magical thinking at it's best. Rainbows, butterflies, unicorns pooing ice cream, all that jazz. They cant connect it to reality in any meaningful way. Because ther's no way to get there without magic.
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

(comma; Commas are often used to separate clauses. In English, a comma is used to separate a dependent clause from the independent clause if the dependent clause comes first: After I fed the cat, I brushed my clothes. (Compare this with I brushed my clothes after I fed the cat.) A relative clause takes commas if it is non-restrictive, as in I cut down all the trees, which were over six feet tall. (Without the comma, this would mean that only those trees over six feet tall were cut down.) commas are also made to say the f word and other cusses. Some style guides prescribe that two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) must be separated by a comma placed before the conjunction.[8][9] In the following sentences, where the second clause is independent (because it can stand alone as a sentence), the comma is considered by those guides to be necessary.

The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Infringe
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW
(from usconstitution.net) In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
The lawful right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed. However, most Americans are reasonable people and we understand that compromises will need to be made from time to time. That’s why we have Amendments to the Constitution. We don’t want violent felons walking around our neighborhoods brandishing weapons. Sadly, the laws that have been created to stop this very act has fallen short of its goal. That said, the 2nd Amendment, contrary to popular belief, was never about hunting and putting food on our tables.

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):
• enabling the people to organize a militia system.
• participating in law enforcement;
• deterring tyrannical government
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Thats the problem. It's magical thinking at it's best. Rainbows, butterflies, unicorns pooing ice cream, all that jazz. They cant connect it to reality in any meaningful way. Because ther's no way to get there without magic.

Hey! Leave jazz out of this. :mad:
 
Top