What would you guys do if the states passed a new amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment? Hypothetical but honest question.
|
|
What would you guys do if the states passed a new amendment that repealed the 2nd amendment? Hypothetical but honest question.
It would never get the 2/3s necessary but if it did, imo, something like that would throw this country into a civil war.Originally Posted by azwe
I'd go buy a gun.
The following users like this post: KCRuf/Nek
Politicized tragedies are great... Also if you are pissed about gun control laws and not drone bombing because guns killed 20 kids you may want to look into how many kids die at the hands of US drones :/
I'm sad for all this kids no matter which terrorists kill them
The Dark Side
My guns would disappear.
Dude, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you are now sounding like an uneducated lemming who doesn't bother to actually think about the bull**** he is spweing, you just say whatever you hear on cnn.
Let me say this very clearly:
HE DIDN'T HAVE A MACHINE GUN, HE COULDN'T "SPRAY BULLETS ALL AROUND HIM" WITH THE GUN HE USED ANY MORE THAN HE COULD WITH A PISTOL, A .22 CAL RIFLE OR A SHOTGUN.
You are fear mongering just like the media, and you are beginning to look like a hysterical little **** doing it.
I believe this to be absolutely true.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-coming-weeks/
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she will introduce a bill on the first day Congress returns in January to ban the sale of so-called “****ault weapons” and high-capacity ammunition clips.
Absolutely. I love my firearms and enjoy a day at the range with the wife. I also enjoy watching liberals such as yourself freak the **** out about something you don't care to understand. Gun control is not a battle that us going to be won, not in this country.
I don't care if you wish to be a sheep who expects the government to protect you. Honestly, I don't care what you personally do or what you own so stay the **** out of my business. Sound good?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: KCRuf/Nek
If we allow our 2nd amendment right to be taken away, there is nothing stopping the others from being taken away.
The following users like this post: Jenn and tonic
Dude please stop being such a ****. And please re-read my original post. Below is another post I made on the first page, which states my opinion and agrees with many of those on your side of the debate. Sorry I said the word "machine gun." You are harping on something I said which I admit was wrong about the situation in Connecticut -- which I stated before I do not know all the facts of, and would prefer not discuss here as there is another thread for it. If I wanted to argue details of it I would be on that thread. I mistakenly thought that his AR was capable of spraying bullets, which I now understand is not. I said this in response to being prodded by you or someone with a similar opinion as yours asking me if I thought this guy having a single shotgun would have made it any different, and I answered. Stop harping on it and move on, please. Please also read my last post which clearly sums up my stance on this issue. Like I said in that post, I've said all I care to about it because I am going in circles with people like you who obviously have a different opinion, which is fine. THIS will be my last post on this thread. I enjoy seeing other people's opinions on this matter and would like to read through them and let them discuss without reading **** like this on here so I'm ****ing through.
I apologize to everyone for this lengthy post, it will be my last, for reals this time, on this thread.
Amendments can be altered though with another amendment. I see that road being traveled soon. When the 2nd amendment was written they had no idea what weapon technology would become.
Now you're starting to see....
I dont understand why it was signed? Really? The reason it was written was in order to ****ure the militia fighters they would be able to keep their weapons after the war (****uming we won, which wasnt a given at the time) in order to help maintain fighting numbers.
No, it was written because we had fought against a tyrannical state militia for 2 years so the founders made the right to keep and bear arms something a militia couldn't take away.
No. I'll keep being a **** as long as you keep being ignorant. You've been told multiple times what kind of gun he used, and corrected about our misconceptions about that gun. Yet you continue to go back to the brainwashed fear mongering stance that you used in the first post.
Yep. And thus the "the writers didn't have any idea what the evolution of weaponry would look like", doesn't hold water.
If anything, the citizenry of the USA is in a far worse position than the founding fathers would have expected. The gap between the weapons an average citizen owns, and those controlled by the Government, is far larger than it ever has been. Its akin to fighting against a revolutionary war era army armed with water balloons.
The following users like this post: Fahooglegods
I'm not trying to be an **** here, but you clearly don't. The Bill of Rights, which includes Amendments 1-10, was ratified in 1791. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The outcome of the Revolution was clear by the time the Second Amendment was passed. We operated under the Articles of Confederation in the years following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War until the Constitution was drafted and put into being. The Bill of Rights was put in place as a check against the government--which grew in strength under the Constitution as opposed to the Articles.
4 users like oucub23's post: eyeballjr, Fahooglegods, fdubzou, Jenn and tonic
I think that, in normal times, what you say about a civil war wouldn't be true.
But I think that there is enough disillusionment with the government that I could actually see this happening.
Problem is, they dont do it all at once because they know that would happen. They'll slowly and surely strip a little at a time, until there is nothing left.
The following users like this post: Fahooglegods
I've seen it for a long time. Others refuse to.
I went to Academy in Edmond and Heartland Outdoors today, they were both absolutely packed. At heartland the guy said business picked up after the election, but they've never seen anything like it since Friday.
Do you believe there would be a void in the lives of those who are not gun owners? And I'm not a liberal but more like a conservative and conserving lives should be a priority.
Individual freedom is the priority. More people have died for that than in all of these shootings.
Then why try to infringe on someone else who might enjoy it?
Exactly.
Right. That's the only logical reason . . .
How many innocent kids are killed each year by a drunk or wreckless driver?
Is this the place for Obama to spew political agenda?
Here we go. President dumbo is using the CT address to push his agenda.
Well ****, time to ban hammers.
Florida man accused of killing neighbor with a hammer
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16...#ixzz2FGmUGmMR
can't believe he is using this moment to sell increased intervention to the mob.
Good speech
If only governing was as easy.
Right. FIFY
Whatever they may be, do you believe there are no solutions to problems?
Lol.
Obama's campaign is over...you thinking he is planning on a shot at pres of the UN gen. ****embly?
Does this mean you will be stocking up on hammers first thing in the mornin?
That really has nothing to do with BO using that platform to spew agenda.
If your solutions involve limiting my individual freedom then FU!
At least I can count on you when we try to get all drugs legalized in the near future...
The only thing I would want to limit is your ignorance you worthless peon.
On private property yes....public property not so much.
dear statist,
please find a way to pay for your current level of intervention then get back to me.
thanks
freedom loving citizen
Can never have to many hammers.
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
I wonder when people are offered solutions if it provides them with hope or not. I think he was trying to offer people hope or do you believe otherwise?
there are no solutions to this problem....
unstable people will continue to harm others.....whether one at a time or in larger numbers....
you're just going to have to accept that....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
