jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (16 posts)

Assault on the 2nd Amendment coming?

  1. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 19 months ago

    Assault on the 2nd Amendment coming?

    Do you believe the 2nd Amendment will be revised or repealed?

  2. profile image0
    Old Poolmanposted 19 months ago

    There are way too many variables to answer this question.  It will depend on who is elected President and who fills the empty chairs on the Supreme Court.

    If it was to happen that could be the trigger for the next Civil War in our country.  Millions of people on both sides have strong feelings on this issue.

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Yes but here is what we do know from their own lips -http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-delegate-admits-goal-behind-common-sense-gun-measures-is-outright-gun-ban/

    2. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Of course they will try.  Most governments don't like the idea of any of their citizens being armed.  It makes total control much more difficult.  They will never quit trying as long as there are gun-hating power hungry people in office.

    3. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      I am responding here to some others here.
      I wrote a hub on american civics 101 explaining some basics on the Constitution.  Please read it before commenting here. You are showing your ignorance...
      please read it before

  3. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 19 months ago

    It won't be repealed. It can be eroded and interfered with under "common sense regulations" that make it essentially dead.
    For example, liberals say ban guns for people who are extremists - and they consider the Tea Party extremist. Then everyone who is officially a member of those lists gets banned from owning a gun.
    In the Soviet Union, dissidents sometimes were sent to the gulag (labor camps) where 80% died, but others were sent to mental institutions with a diagnosis of sluggish schizophrenia. The government said you lived in a perfect society, you couldn't see that, you were crazy. Liberals regularly call conservatives crazy. It isn't unlikely to see a liberal administration say if you have X conservative beliefs, you're too mentally ill to own a gun.
    And both of these interpretations combine "common sense" rules of not letting crazy people or radicals own guns with things liberals are already saying.

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      BTW, Here is a book about this affliction - http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/69296/
      It explains it much better than I can.

  4. jackclee lm profile image80
    jackclee lmposted 19 months ago

    I am a conservative and I don't own a gun. However, I understand the Constitution and the need for the 2nd Amendment. Liberalism is a form of mental illness. They will be against guns until their own lives are at stake and then they will want guns...

    1. peoplepower73 profile image92
      peoplepower73posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Say you are saying as a liberal, I'm mentally ill?

    2. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      There is a difference between liberals the person and liberalism the philosophy. The philosophy of liberalism is what is considered a form of mental illness. It is not based on facts but emotions. For example liberalisms believe in equality outcome..

    3. Yossarian22 profile image61
      Yossarian22posted 19 months agoin reply to this

      equality outcomes are considered "mental illness"? What you been smoking, dude? WHY do you think equality is some sort of illness?

    4. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      I don't smoke. Just telling it like it is. Equality as I know it based on our Constitution has always meant of opportunity. The equality of outcome as proposed by some in the liberal community in the name of fairness is what is insane. Look at Greece

  5. William F. Torpey profile image78
    William F. Torpeyposted 19 months ago

    Amendment II
    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.

    The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear. It states pretty clearly that because a well regulated militia is necessary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

    On September 25, 1789, the first Congress of the United States adopted 12 amendments to the U.S. Constitution–the Bill of Rights–and sent them to the states for ratification. Ten of these amendments were ratified in 1791. In November 1789, North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

    When the U.S. Constitution was adopted to "bear arms" referred to muskets -- which government wanted citizens to have in the event they had to be called up to serve in the militia (and bring their muskets with them.)

    If you are a "strict constructionist" of the U.S. Constitution (as Antonin Scalia was) you interpret the document to mean what it meant when it was written. (There were no AK 47s, hand grenades or atomic bombs back then -- so there's no way that these "arms" were referenced in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment clearly means that the U.S. government simply wanted the colonies to have "arms" available should the militia need to be called to defend the country against any foreign invasion. In today's world the United States has all the arms it needs in the military services to defend our country from any foreign threat. It doesn't need citizens to have muskets in their homes.

    1. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      I disagree. Yes, one reason was to defend agaist foreign invaders. However, the Founders clearly was thinking about citizens defending themselves from domestic threats either personal or an over reaching tyranical government.

    2. William F. Torpey profile image78
      William F. Torpeyposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      Are you kidding, Jack? Domestic threats? Tyrants? It's only one sentence and clearly states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" That's straight forward English language!!!

    3. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 19 months agoin reply to this

      I am not kidding. I am a student of history and the Constitution, unlike most citizens. I read the letters of the Founding fathers and their arguments before signing the Constitution. They were afraid of another government that will use their power..

 
working