Board libs do you support repeal of 2A?
- Thread starter CashvilleCane1
- Start date
No on repeal. Unlike the 1st Am, there hasn’t been a lot of legislation regarding the 2nd Am over the last 200+ years. The argument over the “right to bear arms” just hasn’t been relevant until the last 20 years. Although, like the 1st Am, there can and should be restrictions in place for the betterment of the people. It is my opinion though that groups like the NRA stand in the way of any real congressional discussions due to their deep pockets.
So that means the problem is the legislators not the money. Drain the Swamp
There is good reason the right to free speech and the right to bear arms are amendments 1 and 2. Our founding fathers studied history. They recognized that the ruling class needed to be kept in check. Power corrupts. Technology has changed, but the hearts of man has not.
Deep pockets, career politicians, and the constant corruption of the deep state must all be addressed.
Is and always will be.
The point in 2A is exactly in the definition:
"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."
In the 1700’s in English culture is expected every man not owned a firearm but expected to carry that firearm. Why?
It wasn’t to fight off the govt, it was fight off those criminals who wished to do them harm and to protect their families.
I believe as long as criminals are armed, all American citizens should be also. Criminals, gangs, drug cartels are all armed with “assault weapons” so by taking these tools away from the common citizen only makes them more susceptible victims. Obviously those criminals would not turn in their weapons.
I also have an NFA issue with Short Barrelled Rifles (SBR). Any barrel less than 16 inches in length. Why is this an NFA restriction which requires a tax stamp? I’ve yet to hear a good argument for this.
Our founding fathers were well studied individuals
Don't worry, they don't want to take your guns.Our founding fathers were well studied individuals
Seriously.
Don't worry.
Just assault riffles.
What's the definition of an assault rifle? Don't worry, that's not important.
Shhhhhh we are easing into education here
Didn’t you hear to educate now you must be an angry 17 year old. Doesn’t matter if your anger is misplaced or you’re a uninformed pawn. Emotion not facts rule the day.
He’s a crazy old hippy who wants nobody except Govtto have control and guns!
Yep which is why it’s so hard for me to believe it’s emotion and not some other nefarious plan.
I'm in agreement with this. The 2nd amendment seemed to be doing just fine until the NRA became politicized in the late 70s. Before then they were more interested in gun safety issues. After, they became deeply political and tried to push an agenda where the individual right to bear arms was put on par with the militia clause.
Our founding fathers were well studied individuals
Our founding fathers also thought it was cool to enslave people and rape women.
No...not really.
Amendments? Let's look closely what the word means. To amend something.
It's like anything....we want improvements. They added saftey to automobiles and now there are great improvements to the fatality rates. It's called progress. They were bearing arms with bayonets. Why do we have Assault riffles? Progress. Improvements. Improvements are necessary as a way of life.
Amendments? Let's look closely what the word means. To amend something.
It's like anything....we want improvements. They added saftey to automobiles and now there are great improvements to the fatality rates. It's called progress. They were bearing arms with bayonets. Why do we have Assault riffles? Progress. Improvements. Improvements are necessary as a way of life.
Last edited:
That’s not true. There were those who followed in line with that culture but there were others who were against slavery like Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Adams... there were others too, but I’m sure you knew that.
Except for the death rates for accidents involving cel phone usage. Also DUI’s is still as big a problem as ever. Why don’t we ban vehicles? Hmmmmm.
Numerous liberals are now coming out for an all out repeal of 2A. Back on task here. I would like to hear our boards libs defend this stance. I’m very curious why?
I don’t understand how young students demand their lives be protected in school (which they should), yet they seem not to care that over 600,000 babies were aborted last year.
Totally agree and this is another heavily avoided topic because I really don’t think most libs stomach the thought of abortion. They just try not to think about it.
Kind of like the people that are against abortion and in favor of the death penalty?
A lot of people don't feel abortion is murder. It is interpretation. I personally am pro-life, but I do believe others should be allowed to make a choice. I have relatives that were raped, impregnated, and opted for an abortion. What right do I have to tell them what to do?
How in the world do you associate those two?
One is a handed down punishment by a jury for a heinously committed crime. Notice the term heinous because it’s part of definition as to how a death penalty case is chosen.
The other is an innocent life who has done nothing wrong and has no capacity to make a decision for itself.
Why take the life of an unborn child? Even in rape, out the child up for adoption. There are tons of parents who can’t have children who’d give that child a loving home.
I don't understand why right wingers support the notion of no abortions but every chance they get cut or eliminate health care for those same babies that are born.
If you never sit down and seriously discuss the definition, we'll never make progress. Are you willing to do that?
How arrogant of you to assume you know all for which I stand. I do not support elimination of health care for babies.
Some interpret life at birth and not conception. That is the difference.
Do you have an adopted child? I do.
Most of the people I know in the adoption community are pro-choice people. I find it funny that so many "pro-lifers" would never dare adopt a child. Even my Opus Dei in-laws were against my wife and I adopting a child. For all the people that have debated that point with me, "well just put them up for adoption", I have yet to meet one person that has actually adopted a child when I pressed them on it.
We are getting ready to adopt two. My wife had a very rough pregnancy with our first and couldn’t have anymore after. I know dozens here who are pro-life and have adopted children (almost all have more than one).
Your DUI example brings about an interesting point. It could be argued that without cars our society could not exist anywhere close to the way it exists today. To ban automobiles isn't feasible.
But what about alcohol? DWIs and alcohol related disease (liver failure etc) kill far more people than guns do. No one needs alcohol. Perhaps David Hogg should try to get prohibition ramped back up?
Taking a life is taking a life. That is the difference in my mind. And let's not forget some people sentenced to death are innocent.
Bro, I'm not an expert on weapons/guns. But I'm sure folks from both sides could sit down and come to some reasonable agreements. Do you agree or you simply don't want to change anything?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The latest on Michigan State DT Transfer Simeon Barrow after OV to Miami
- Latest: BenjaminRivals
-
