Go back
Shinzo Abe Assassinated

Shinzo Abe Assassinated

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
Then repeal the constitution, don't argue with it. That will accomplish nothing.

For the third time, there must be guns in Japan. How else would they hunt?
You don't need to repeal, it says right in the Second Amendment that the purpose of gun ownership is specifically to maintain a "well-regulated militia". Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.


@vivify said
You don't need to repeal, it says right in the Second Amendment that the purpose of gun ownership is specifically to maintain a "well-regulated militia". Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
So the 2nd amendment is invalid and it's words mean nothing? LOL!
You gave a reason to repeal it, not ignore it.

The "security of a free state" is not invalid because you want it to be. It is in the constitution. Accept those words or repeal it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
So the 2nd amendment is invalid and it's words mean nothing? LOL!
You gave a reason to repeal it, not ignore it.

The "security of a free state" is not invalid because you want it to be. It is in the constitution. Accept those words or repeal it.
Yes it's invalid since a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free State".

Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify said
Yes it's invalid since a militia is no longer "necessary to the security of a free State".
So come up with a plan so the criminals don't have any guns and the law abiding citizens will concede to less guns.

Starting with attacking the law abiding gun owners just leaves people at the mercy of gun toting criminals.
It may be that the USA has so many guns in the hands of criminals that no new policy will work.

My suggestion was a mandatory life sentence and no parole for anyone caught with an illegal gun.
After that...give out life sentences for crimes with a gun to cover the legal gun owners who use them.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify

Also, during Obama's time y'all had the House and Senate for a long enough period to do something.

I'm pretty sure y'all have the House and Senate now right?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@ron-desantis said
@vivify

Also, during Obama's time y'all had the House and Senate for a long enough period to do something.

I'm pretty sure y'all have the House and Senate now right?
Due to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@athousandyoung said
Due to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.
And the Democrats used it against Trump 🤷

The only reason why Dems want it eliminated is because it is being used against them but they had no problem using it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@vivify - Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
----------------------

Wrong - on more than one level.

1. It is a constitutional right, no conditions are placed on it. It is there **in hopes of** having militias formed.

2. The people *do* have a need to protect themselves from wrongful leaders or to have an uprising/revolution.

The right to a revolution is a natural right.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@athousandyoung said
Due to Republican abuse of the filibuster Dems need 2/3 majority to get anything done.
uhHuh.

the democrats should have been hard at work at:
a) getting rid of the electoral college system of electing the POTUS
b) getting rid of tax loopholes
c) getting rid of the filibuster
Oh well, another golden opportunity is slipping by.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
uhHuh.

the democrats should have been hard at work at:
a) getting rid of the electoral college system of electing the POTUS
b) getting rid of tax loopholes
c) getting rid of the filibuster
Oh well, another golden opportunity is slipping by.
The Republicans would never tolerate the removal of the EC don’t be silly

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@earl-of-trumps said
@vivify - Since this is no longer needed to for the "security of a free state", there is no longer a constitutional right to it.
----------------------

Wrong - on more than one level.

1. It is a constitutional right, no conditions are placed on it. It is there **in hopes of** having militias formed.

2. The people *do* have a need to protect themselves ...[text shortened]... wrongful leaders or to have an uprising/revolution.

The right to a revolution is a natural right.
That Constitutional right has a specific premise: That a well-regulated militia is "necessary" to secure a free state. That premise is no longer true in a country with the world's most powerful military.

By the 2nd Amendment's own conditions it's no longer valid.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.