I know Im probably gonna get some heat for this

[actaeon277]

I think the whole "Shall NOT Be Infringed" is pretty clear.

 

[MisterChester]

The facts have already proven this^ statement incorrect. From the inclusion of the Second Amendment to date, we have way less than we did to start. How can anyone say otherwise?

A major reason why you can see it that way is because ever since there was a 2nd, every law created to tarnish it has gone relatively unchallenged in court until now and they used the 10th as their excuse. It's much harder to get rid of a law than to create one. It's a little upsetting to say this but the SCOTUS will be our last hope on a national front.

 

[LP1]

I don't see the rabid anti-gun representatives and advocates being convinced of anything other than their own broken-record spiel.
Can you give an example of someone who was swayed otherwise?


The facts have already proven this^ statement incorrect. From the inclusion of the Second Amendment to date, we have way less than we did to start. How can anyone say otherwise?

You are falling victim to the demonization that is preached from certain outlets. I personally know people who have changed their position on gun rights. I won't name them - they aren't famous, but they vote. And as far as timeframe is concerned, I am concerned with the present and the future - it can be influenced. The past can't be changed, so there's no point in dwelling on it.

 

[JetGirl]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded.

I think the whole "Shall NOT Be Infringed" is pretty clear.

 

[LP1]

I think the whole "Shall NOT Be Infringed" is pretty clear.

Without the other wording, yes it is. However, it does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[actaeon277]

A major reason why you can see it that way is because ever since there was a 2nd, every law created to tarnish it has gone relatively unchallenged in court until now and they used the 10th as their excuse. It's much harder to get rid of a law than to create one. It's a little upsetting to say this but the SCOTUS will be our last hope on a national front.

No.
There are options after.

 

[MisterChester]

No.
There are options after.

Like what?

 

[actaeon277]

Like what?

I guess history is not a strong point?

 

[actaeon277]

Like what?

Before you jump to conclusions

Prohibition was not overturned by the court. Yet it was repealed.

Then there is the Ghandi option.

Then...

 

[MisterChester]

Before you jump to conclusions

Prohibition was not overturned by the court. Yet it was repealed.

Then there is the Ghandi option.

Then...

A constitutional convention?

 

[cce1302]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded.

No, that's your opinion, and you're doing a poor job of defending it.


Without the "well regulated militia" part, it could be limited to hunting rifles, not the weapons of war.

Legal "scholars" have long tried to gut the second amendment for political reasons.

Weak minded citizens and cowards have stopped defending the second amendment because they don't like gun grabbers and the like saying mean things about them.

 

[2A_Tom]

A constitutional convention?

Exactly what the left would like.

Once a Constitutional Convention is constituted and convened anything and everything can be changed no holds barred no mater what it is called for. I can't think of a single person in the world I would want to have that power.

The founders were exceptional men.
They crafted an exceptional document.
Founded an exceptional Nation.

Many misunderstand the one thing that makes us exceptional. Don't miss this point, what makes us EXCEPTIONAL is our FREEDOM. We are the only nation on earth composed completely of free men (ladies please forgive the generic).

Exceptional does not mean that we are more excellent than others, just diffetent. The GRAND EXPERIMENT is whether a nation founded on freedom could stand (see A. L.'s Gburg. Add.). (Let's not do the three fifths argument right now, OK?)

When our dictator-in-chief says that every nation wants to believe that they are exceptional he shouts his ignorance.

 

[Birds Away]

So anyone who refuses to compromise has been brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? You're just as condescending and full of as the rest of the gun grabbers. Whispering sweet nothings into our ears about compromise will get you nowhere. I think everyone has seen enough of how that turns out for us. Personal freedom is what this is all about. I reject the control and conformity platform of the leftists. Once you take the 2nd away we will lose our freedom of speech, our freedom to worship according to our own beliefs and also the sanctity of our homes. No sir, not going to happen.

 

[Roadie]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

No, it is not a FACT, it is your OPINION.. Separate clauses, just like in the rest of the BoR. The wording is only unclear, if you try to twist it..

Give this article a read..
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

 

[mbills2223]

No, it is not a FACT, it is your OPINION.. Separate clauses, just like in the rest of the BoR. The wording is only unclear, if you try to twist it..

Give this article a read..
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

x 100 million billion

 

[JetGirl]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler.

No, it is not a FACT, it is your OPINION.. Separate clauses, just like in the rest of the BoR. The wording is only unclear, if you try to twist it..

[video=youtube;1KydSAKywdE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KydSAKywdE[/video]

 

[Roadie]

Seriously, to believe it is poorly worded, one has to believe that our Founders were SO stupid, than the MEANT "Right of the Militia" but wrote "Right of the People" by mistake.

(JetGirl beat me to it, lol)

 

[cbhausen]

I think we should all contribute to a fund to send the OP to an Appleseed...

 

[IndyDave1776]

So if they were more conservative, they would have won? You can't seriously believe that, do you?

Let's see...

Reagan won as a conservative.

Bush I won as a presumed conservative, truth notwithstanding.

Bush II won as an outspoken conservative.

Dole got shot down as a 'moderate'.

McStupid got shot down as a 'moderate'.

Romney got shot down as a 'moderate'.

Can you see a trend here or do you need someone to draw you a diagram?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The FACT of 2A is that it is poorly worded. Without the "well regulated militia" part, it would be much simpler. Legal scholars have long disagreed with what it means, and there is no end in sight. The only true fact is that nobody really knows for sure. So we are left with trying to arrive at a consensus OPINION about what it really means. When you think about it, the same holds true for everything else in the constitution as well.

This leaves me with only one question: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you failing to realize that those who spew this nonsense are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid the fact that the Constitution disallows their own agenda?