How are gun rights advocates going to be able to debate their way out of gun confiscation now?

[SMEAC]

I'll put this here for fun.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...oses-28th-amendment-to-regulate-gun-ownership



But that's not all.

Onion worthy

 

[AgonyandIrony]

I was hoping you would say this

I will make sure that all the disabled vets don't have their money go to their spouse's account, because that is what your bill dealt with.

Not to mention poor people in slummy areas need home protection more than most.

Buying a Taurus Millennium .40 tomorrow for my new ccw. Theres just too much crime and home invasions in this city for me to not carry or have something by the bedside.

 

[sub_thug]

So no need to play with the second amendment to make real changes to gun laws.

Might as well get started.

That’s actually the opposite of what I was implying

 

[oldshadow]

The National Guard is the Militia. This idea of unorganized militia is silly, and it's really just something the Government came up with so they could institute a draft.

The guard is more federal and only part of the militia.

The state militia is more of the type of thing they had in mind.

And that is more of the unorganized militia.

Links are all over google on this.

 

[HIMBOB]

You don't seem to be able to discuss things without resorting to personal insults. So between that and your foreign status (i.e. no practical or voting interest in America's domestic policy) I'll let you take it up with someone else. Have a good one.

But to be nice I'll answer this question. You'd have to find something in the Constitution that gives the federal government that authority. Then you'd have to explain how it trumps the restrictions placed on them in the Bill of Rights.

So do you believe the constitution allows you to own any weapons you want? Even ones outside the Geneva convention?

 

[HIMBOB]

That’s actually the opposite of what I was implying

But clearly the 2nd offers no clarification on what is allowed. Thus to change what is allowed you don't need to change the 2nd.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So do you believe the constitution allows you to own any weapons you want? Even ones outside the Geneva convention?

It clearly does. Had they wanted to carve out exceptions they were smart enough men to have considered it.

The GC doesn't overrule the Constitution. We have an Amendment process to make changes as technology develops.

 

[HIMBOB]

It clearly does. Had they wanted to carve out exceptions they were smart enough men to have considered it.

The GC doesn't overrule the Constitution. We have an Amendment process to make changes as technology develops.

I agree it does, but to me that highlights the need for another layer of control/restriction as that is unworkable in the modern era.

Allowing guys like paddock unfettered access to rpgs, claymores and white phosphorus is crazy.

 

[Stoic1]

There is a big difference between a person declared mentally deficient by the government and a mentally capable person petitioning the government for assistance.

Naw man. You were real clear the first time. No need to backpeddle. If you aren't mentally fit enough to pay for your own existence than no guns. And I'm totally on board with it.

 

[Stoic1]

Bob, you're drawn to gun threads. And you continuously embarrass yourself about American laws.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I agree it does, but to me that highlights the need for another layer of control/restriction as that is unworkable in the modern era.

Allowing guys like paddock unfettered access to rpgs, claymores and white phosphorus is crazy.

I'm all for adding restrictions for nukes, chemical, biological, explosives. But firearms (and anything less lethal) are off-limits. If it's good enough for the police and the average military infantryman then it's good enough for the American citizen.

 

[HIMBOB]

I'm all for adding restrictions for nukes, chemical, biological, explosives. But firearms (and anything less lethal) are off-limits. If it's good enough for the police and the average military infantryman then it's good enough for the American citizen.

But wouldn't those restrictions be in violation of your own interpretation of your 2nd amendment rights?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But wouldn't those restrictions be in violation of your own interpretation of your 2nd amendment rights?

Adding them as prescribed by law. Via the amendment process.

 

[HIMBOB]

Bob, you're drawn to gun threads. And you continuously embarrass yourself about American laws.

What is it 4 years running and you're still looking for the quote to prove me wrong.

I suggest you give up, its gone well beyond sad.

But as you've seen me say near hundreds of times. Feel free to quote me!!!

Lastly don't think I haven't noticed your recent preference to talk about me without actually quoting or tagging me.

 

[HIMBOB]

Adding them as prescribed by law. Via the amendment process.

So you agree it can be done without changing the 2nd.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you agree it can be done without changing the 2nd.

What? In order to change an Amendment you add an Amendment. The feds and states currently have no Constitutional authority to interfere with a citizen keeping and bearing weapons of war. In order to maintain integrity we need an Amendment that disallows the types of weapons I described. Otherwise we're just ignoring the law because there's enough of us to not give a shit that we're doing it. That's poor form. Especially when it comes to enumerated rights.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

this will literally never happen in america -- especially after the last 10 years.

 

[HIMBOB]

What? In order to change an Amendment you add an Amendment. The feds and states currently have no Constitutional authority to interfere with a citizen keeping and bearing weapons of war. In order to maintain integrity we need an Amendment that disallows the types of weapons I described. Otherwise we're just ignoring the law because there's enough of us to not give a shit that we're doing it. That's poor form. Especially when it comes to enumerated rights.

So you feel the 2nd amendment should be changed to specify the restrictions you high lighted earlier?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

So you feel the 2nd amendment should be changed to specify the restrictions you high lighted earlier?

As per the rules, yes. Ideally this would be accompanied by respect for the rights that remain. Predominantly speaking. You'll always have the whiny pussy coward fucks who can't stomach the least bit of affront or risk.

 

[HIMBOB]

As per the rules, yes. Ideally this would be accompanied by respect for the rights that remain. Predominantly speaking. You'll always have the whiny pussy coward fucks who can't stomach the least bit of affront or risk.

And you'll always have crazy militant nut jobs and yes both should be ignored.

But good to have found some common ground.