Texas A&M law prof: It’s time to repeal Second Amendment

reply to post by Bassago

Mark Levin wrote a book about the Article V way to revise the constitution.

A constitutional convention called by the states can change it in any way they want if 3/4 of the states can get together to ratify the changes.

Does anyone think 37 states would agree to repeal the 2nd amendment?

www.americanthinker.com...

You take a gun away from a lunatic, it doesn't make them any less of a lunatic. Gun control is nothing more than attempt at a Band-Aid solution of deterring violence/crime. Gun Control advocates see the gun the individual is using, but they don't bother looking at the individual themselves and ask themselves why they're hurting/killing people.

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting that we should give everyone guns, but I think taking a look at the root cause of violence and how we can prevent would be a better use of time and resources (and would probably not anger nearly as many people).

Mon1k3r
I think I have to agree with the general premise. When the second amendment was ratified, there were no assault weapons, there were no high capacity handgun magazines, or auto pistols. If a citizen wants a shotgun or a single shot rifle, ie, they want to hunt, all good, but assault weapons and semi-auto pistols are for one purpose: Killing people.

My.....DEAR.....GOD.....

You really buy that whole Feinstein bollocks hook-line-and sinker dontcha?

Have you ever even fired a gun yourself? Do you understand the concept of INTENT?

You seriously think a person who INTENDS to kill many needs to acquire an "assault" weapon to do so? I could bolt two Katanas to the front corners of my Volvo wagon bumper and kill easily a hundred people at the next local street festival.

What people who subscribe to this theory fail to realize is that the body count always has very little to do with the weapons used. If someone wants to kill people, THEY WILL KILL PEOPLE!!! The difficult part is DECIDING TO KILL PEOPLE. That's the major line that get's crossed!

These guys didn't have guns: en.wikipedia.org...

Lee Rigby's killers decapitated him in broad daylight in London just a few months ago without a gun.

Or how bout a mass murder of school children done without a gun: en.wikipedia.org...

Read this: stephenewright.com...

The bottom line is if you're sick in the head and want to kill people, the world offers thousands of ways to do it.

I learned from a great teacher once, to fix a problem, you treat the CAUSE not the SYMPTOMS. America needs to fix the CAUSE of our civil unrest instead of treating the symptoms.

reply to post by Bassago


Prof. Penrose needs to go to rehab and reflect on her marxist political beliefs.

Imightknow
Not to worry anti gun people, there will continue to be school shootings, movie theater shootings and any other kind of heinous shootings they can think of all in the name if disarming America. It won't be overnight, but rest assured that most likely 10 years from now America won't be armed the way we are right now.


What I'm done arguing about though is the fact that guns don't kill people. I know I'm not the only pro-gun person who can say this til I turn blue in the face, it just doesn't matter. People of this country are only looking for easy answers and don't want to take a good, hard look at what's really the issue at hand. Issues such as mental instabilities not being treated properly, just treated by throwing pills at a person and sending them on their way. These pills, which are tools by TPTB to treat our conditions, NEVER cure, is what doctors and shrinks think is the best way to treat a person with depression or any type of psychosis ailment. Once guns are gone, these people will still find ways to commit acts of violence.

When people start using their cars as weapons of death, for example driving through a large crowd of people at high speeds, will the morons who wanted to ban guns try to ban cars then too? Of course not, because everyone uses cars and they would never conceive the thought to inconvenience themselves LOL. But most anti gun people don't own guns, so their worthless bias opinion is just that, BIAS and baseless nonsense.

Not sure how many people have realized this but Americans need to grow the f@ck up and stop the shenanigans of looking for excuses and throwing out judgements based on personal opinions; for that type of behavior will never be productive or make changes for the better.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

www.pewresearch.org...

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware May 7, 2013

Even certain areas in Mexico are arming themselves to fight the cartels and yet permitted guns in Mexico are almost impossible to come by for the average citizen. I think the gun grabbers would be happy to turn us into a disarmed society when there is a real shooting war going on south of our porous border and the cartels have their tentacles in every major city in America. The cities with the gun bans have the highest homicide rates; not rocket science just statistics that get in the way of some people's grand plan... But like all the communist said back in the 50s give us your young to educate and we will own the world.

I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.
Nikita Khrushchev, Speech in Yugoslavia, Aug. 24, 1963

He also said, "We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

Easiest way to this end IMO is to capture the minds of the young..

There are those who believe in the Communist Utopia and make all kinds of excuses for why that system has failed time after time.. They just want to try it one more time with them at the top no doubt.

Today there are people in cities of Russia who do not have running water or flush toilets. China go visit.... Wonderful places there for those with money; the workers are glad to have a job but 6 days a week and 10 to 14 hour days drives some to do a Super Man dive off of tall buildings...

You take their poor and compare our most destitute capitalist poor....USA poor would look like a solid middle or upper class to them.

No doubt the last socialist or communist governance was not done as our latest crop of progressives would like to do it... Sigh, I don't care to watch them destroy what used to be the greatest nation for good on the planet but sometimes you have to wonder if they have not gained control of the wheel house of the ship of state; there are those who believe someone needs to mount a boarding party to save the day/country...

I think I'll keep my second thanks.

reply to post by signalfire


At the time..... guns like the blunderbuss were ON PAR with Military Grade hardware. The 2nd Amendment didn't specify that "The People" should only have access to inferior grades of weaponry. In fact the whole real point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure people did have the arms to insurrect against a tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers foresaw the need, even with their fledgling democracy, that it needed to be protected from within against future government abuses. The FF's didn't trust that a government would always be for, of and by the People. They made sure the People had means at their disposal to correct things, should they ever go wrong.

If people don't like that, then try to amend the Constitution.... Good Luck with that.

bigfatfurrytexan

According to SCOTUS ruling, "militia" is any able bodied male over 18 (or adult male, whatever the age is). "Well regulated" is the crux of the argument. My belief is the framers intended the owner of a weapon to know how to use it. Seems I am in the minority.

Maybe in the minority of People who oppose the 2nd, not those who support it.
In the vernacular of the day, Well Regulated meant "Well Trained, Drilled often" or "Very capable, functioning properly". It most assuredly didn't mean what we consider well regulated to mean, ie: lots of stipulations or laws.

reply to post by Bassago


From my cold dead hands. This is the line in the sand and it is non-nogotiable.

reply to post by th3dudeabides


Agreed but these progressive types are using a mufti-pronged approach.

Trying to continuously restrict the second amendment with a web of laws.
Brainwash the young people against guns with constant TV/news propaganda.
Infiltrate educational systems and corrupt belief in the constitution.

I think they know there's no way they're getting us to just hand over our guns even though they keep trying. They're playing the long game here. Unfortunately for them it's not a game to us.

It's about as laughable as idiot Joe Manchin started talking about outlawing assault rifles here in WV. LOL! People actually laughed in his face and told him to forget it. Obama & friends obviously tell that clown & Nick Rahall what to do. Politicians are so out-of-touch with the common man, and instead, they try to do what a miniscule minority of anti-American people want? I guess that's where being bought and paid for comes in. These radicals will never succeed with their agenda. They keep on and they will cause a civil war.

Changing gears; Last weekend it was beautiful weather here and I took my wife and kids shooting. My 14yo daughter really impresses me with how good she can handle guns, especially an AK-47 and Mini 30. She's good with hand guns as well. My two little boys love it. I hold the .22 rifle for them and let them shoot(ALL WEAR EAR PROTECTION). I teach them the importance of proper handling of weapons and how to handle them. I won't always be around and I owe them that. I teach them how to skin a buck and run a trot line. I make'em help with the garden, which they love doing. I've never seen kids love cucumbers the way they do. They were choosing those over junk food. That and carrots. Anyways, I'm drifting off topic a little. sorry. Leave us and our guns alone.

signalfire
I have a friend who has, shall we say, unusual tastes in hobbies and collections.

We once started discussing guns and I asked him if he had any. He answered, 'but of course' and promptly went to his closet to get it. I was somewhat worried about what was going to appear but he took out a very old leather case and opened it up.

Inside was a blunderbuss. A very old, breech loading weapon right out of what, the 1700s?

He showed me what was required to shoot it once, and once only. It took a good minute or more and he was hurrying.

THAT's what the Second Amendment was talking about. Not freekin' machine guns.

The Second Amendment...along with all the other amendments...were put in place because when the colonies revolted the British gov't used strongarm tactics to try and put it down, and after the revolution these tactics left the founding father pretty touchy. These tactics...restriction of freedom of speech and assembly, forced self incrimination, etc...are used by tyrannical gov'ts today every bit as much as they were used by tyrannical govt's of yesteryear. Including on that list is the fact that the very first thing any hostile gov't authority tries to do when it attempts to install control of a local area is to sieze all weapons from the area. This isn't something from centuries ago- we saw that all during hurricane Katrina, where officers were ordered to go house to house and sieze everyone's weapons, up to and including one televised case where an elderly woman who just wanted to be left alone was tackled by police and her .22 revolver was confiscated. How much of a threat is a .22 revolver to the government, again?

It doesn't matter how effective using firearms would be against our modern military any more that it matters how effective freedom of speech would be against our modern communications networks. The fact remains that the gov't as envisioned by the founding fathers MUST NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT SUCH THINGS TO BEGIN WITH. Granted, there are lines to be drawn in those rights, such as our not having the right to make up slander against others, but in the case of the gun prohibitionists it is quite obvious the path they pursue isn't over what should be allowable and what isn't. The path they are pursuing has been over people not being able to have guns AT ALL and they are grabbing whatever chance they get to chip away at the list. When characters like Diane Feinstein say things in interviews like "I'd have Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in if I had enough votes in Congress" what do you think that means, exactly?