Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 2:43:22 PM)

Silvermike wants to derail the thread on undermining the constitution and make it a thread on guns so I started one for him.



Aylee -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 2:57:47 PM)

Repeal is unlikely. Amending the Constitution is difficult (it was meant to be.) Regulations are much easier to pass as well as legislation.



mnottertail -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 2:58:46 PM)

isn't a thread about undermining the constitution by definition a derail?




Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 2:59:18 PM)

1) No, he's not -- that's you wanting only opinions that you like.

2) The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be repealed -- it needs updated language so that the NRA can stop pretending it says something else.

Justice Stevens retired in 2010 at the end of the second-longest tenure in Supreme Court history. (The only justice to serve longer is the one he replaced in 1975, William Douglas, with 36 years). Now Justice Stevens has written a book on the Constitution called Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. The title says it all.

One of the amendments Justice Stevens would like to change is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads, “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.”

Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”



BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 3:03:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Repeal is unlikely. Amending the Constitution is difficult (it was meant to be.) Regulations are much easier to pass as well as legislation.

I know.
Mike wants to derail the discussion on chipping away at the constitution and the revenge thread into anti gun rants so I gave him a place to do it.
I don't like the approach. If you think an amendment or part of the constitution is wrong change it, don't chip away till there is nothing left.
The 2nd isn't the only one under attack, the 9th is virtually gone, and the 1st and 4th are under serious attack.



Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 3:04:29 PM)

Oh FFS. Grow up.



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 4:11:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Silvermike wants to derail the thread on undermining the constitution and make it a thread on guns so I started one for him.

Fuck You....I never derailed your little thread.
I responded to it [:)]



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 4:12:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Repeal is unlikely. Amending the Constitution is difficult (it was meant to be.) Regulations are much easier to pass as well as legislation.

I know.
Mike wants to derail the discussion on chipping away at the constitution and the revenge thread into anti gun rants so I gave him a place to do it.
I don't like the approach. If you think an amendment or part of the constitution is wrong change it, don't chip away till there is nothing left.
The 2nd isn't the only one under attack, the 9th is virtually gone, and the 1st and 4th are under serious attack.

Again ....Go fuck yourself,you asked for a discussion
I simply gave one,the fact that you don't like where it goes is your problem and hangup not mine.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 5:52:16 PM)

Mike, "Fuck you" and "Fuck yourself" isn't discussion.

It's what happens here a lot but discussion it is not.



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 6:20:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Mike, "Fuck you" and "Fuck yourself" isn't discussion.

It's what happens here a lot but discussion it is not.

See his other thread....the one that gave birth to this one and his mis characterization of me.....continuously .
So the fuck you stands.



Kirata -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 6:37:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

How droll. He just wants to "add" five words. Five words that effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

K.






slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 6:48:27 PM)

Or that better reflect the reality of modern America.



Musicmystery -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:00:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Justice Stevens believes five words should be added. He would like to add “when serving in the militia,” so the last part would read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

How droll. He just wants to "add" five words. Five words that effectively repeal the Second Amendment.

K.





Well, droll or not, it would clarify a frequent point of contention.

Or, if you prefer, add "even when those people aren't in the militia."



DaddySatyr -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:03:41 PM)


I once saw a "definition" (I'm not sure if it was a legal one) of militia that was:

"Anyone between the ages of 17 and 59 that is a citizen or has expressed a desire to be a citizen of the United States who is not an elected official nor a member of the military"

Again, I'm not swearing it's an official, legal definition but I've always felt that's a pretty good one.



Michael



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:25:13 PM)

So basically every male of legal age ?
That should work fine.



smileforme50 -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:37:36 PM)

DaddySatyr's "definition" doesn't say anything about "male". It says "Anyone"....which would be all genders.



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:44:11 PM)

Sorry,I blew that one.
I read what wasn't there and made an assumption based on when I figured his definition was coming from
The idea is just as appalling though,doubly so now.



Aylee -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:44:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So basically every male of legal age ?
That should work fine.



You have people ducking jury duty, do you really think people are going to show up for militia muster?



slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:45:49 PM)

Wasn't me that offered the definition...I just remarked on it.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (12/29/2014 7:48:43 PM)


I've gone back and looked and I believe the person I have on hide is also trying to paint me into a straw man position, again.

NOWHERE did I type the word "male":

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


I once saw a "definition" (I'm not sure if it was a legal one) of militia that was:

"Anyone between the ages of 17 and 59 that is a citizen or has expressed a desire to be a citizen of the United States who is not an elected official nor a member of the military"

Again, I'm not swearing it's an official, legal definition but I've always felt that's a pretty good one.



Michael


Nice try, though. I'm all about the equality.



Michael



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875