http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/16/ca...#ixzz2lbxQYFei
Printable View
Yep, start the appeal process. Tell her to go back to law school. She has apparently forgotten what it takes to repeal our outdated living document or how many times it has been attempted and been successful. She also forgot to mention that other nations throughout history have tried to start such documents but that those documents were so focused and not left to any interpretation and gave no room for liberty that they failed.
W h a t a fucking twit.
She's just an attention whore. Apparently a very dimwitted one at that.
Agnostic about guns? Hahaha.
I wonder if she is tenured. Let's hope not.
If they want to repeal it so badly, I urge them to try. Success or fail, their efforts will be a failure, they just don't have the foresight to understand why.
Attempting to repeal the 2nd amendment would be a self correcting problem IMHO, so bring it!
We all ready have a state's rights model like she is suggesting which is why we got stuck with all these crappy laws
Lets repeal the first amendment and shut this woman up.
I may be wrong, but I have always been told that since the Second amendment is part of the Bill Of Right it cannot be repealed unless 100% of the states agrees to repeal it, or change it.
What is the goal? To increase safety?
What a stupid c---. Over time they might get their wish with the indoctrination And political correctness that is being forced on the nations youngsters from pre-school all the way through institutions of so called higher learning.
That crack pot is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
I wonder if she thought if we repeal the 2nd, we'll also have to repeal the 4th so the gov't can enter homes to confiscate guns. The thing that pisses me off the most is the statement that we "tolerate" gun violence. I sure as hell wouldn't tolerate someone shooting up a school or a movie theatre!
Any part of the constitution can be amended. Just takes passage of a bill by congress, or convocation of a constitutional convention, and any such amendments must be approved by 3/4 of the states in order to take effect.
For the childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I stand corrected. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
and then you have this guy:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...on-guns-120313
what do they have in common? They are academics. I deal with the clash between theory and reality all day long. If it's not with academics it's with finance weenies or some other support agency.
Anyways, here's a snippet:
1. The only guns permitted will be the following:
- a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
- b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
- c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.
2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)
3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of some other cops -- harder.)
4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.
5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.
6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.
And there is probably as many people out there listening to and agreeing with them as there are on our side.
She's "extremely passionate" about the Constitution, yet calls it outdated? Hypocrite. She's retarded. The framers of the Constitution created the 2nd Amendment not for "standing armies" but to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed by the government. She thinks she's so smart, yet she obviously fails to realize that the Bill of Rights is to restrict the government from committing tyrannical acts against the people. Maybe she needs to go to a different Constitutional law school than the one she went to with Barack Obama.
I think she should be careful about taking away peoples rights and moving slowly towards communism. The first thing commies do is kill all the lawyers.
[Shock]Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywings
After some deep thought, perhaps we should shit can the Constitution. That's what the ultimate goal of the left is. Why not obligate them. However before we do, everyone who supports the Constitution relocate, say west of the mississippi, stop in Nevada and south to Mexico. Then let them have at it. See how long that lawlessness last.
Just long enough for those that remain to be whipped into a frenzy of hatred against the others. Then the bombing begins. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
Why should I appreciate a Traitors service to the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor Larson
His Service? I dont appreciate it at all. That guy can go fuck him self.
Let's take the low estimate of 270 million firearms. And then a VERY, VERY low average gun cost at say 500$.Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywings
If every firearm was turned in the first year (as I'm assuming this guy would prefer), we're talking 270 billion dollars.
I wonder how many gun owners are going to want to pay 200% of their guns value with their tax dollars in order to have it destroyed?
Dream on, cock-sucker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kawiracer14
Agree, funny how the same idiots that think we should repeal the outdated 2nd Amendment have no issues with the 1st Amendment?
What these libetards tools forget:
1. We are 9 meals at anytime away from chaos and social norms being tossed aside.
2. People are naturally competitive/aggressive because we are designed to fight to survive.
3. Assaults, murders, wars etc... are part of all of our collective history. Often they are fought over resources; food, territory, minerals and riches, reproductive resources etc..
4. Just because we are generally comfortable (translated-fat and content) we don't generally have to fight for each meal or a place to live.
5. Mankind produces people with power who are evil. This will never change, and as such We the People need a way to combat this.
The framers of the Constitution knew all of these things and many more. Which is why they made the 2nd amendment second only after our other most important freedom.
But of course none of this is any news in this forum.
1) The value of a firearm is far beyond what it costs to purchase.
2) People that call the Constitution outdated seem to be the same people that misunderstand evolution is moving at hyper speeds and the human race is rapidly progressing away from every historical atrocity they can think of.
The document's outdated...except the parts that serve them.Quote:
Originally Posted by n8tive97
They walk among us, and they breed.....
Um... Why do they keep saying machine guns are illegal? I understand some don't like guns... But when they start talking about the laws like they have a clue when they don't it really is annoying.
Because as far as they are concerned they were banned in the 1930s. Doubly banned in 1986.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hound
(If you cannot get them after a freaking year wait they are effectively banned)
Next thing to do is. "Mr. and Mrs. America... turn them all in."
The only silver lining in this is she's one of the few to acknowledge that this is what it would take to achieve their goal legally. As opposed to the current strategy of judges and politicians simply ignoring Heller/McDonald.Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
That's why for most of us on this forum, if we're there when it happens, it will turn into a 2 way shoot...Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
They wouldn't come house to house initially. They would let you turn them in like in England. Then when crime goes sky high they would arrest those that used the guns to protect themselves from home invaders. Then when people were to afraid to use them against the criminal element then there might be door to door searches. This could take years to finish but they have been trying to get the ball rolling on confiscation for 50 years they can wait us out. Freedom requires eternal vigilance though.
...and when 5 million armed citizens show up in DC, what happens then?
It's a catch 22 I think. When people talk about banning guns, they look to the law abiding. They have law abiding people on to debate with gun grabbers on tv shows, etc. No one points to the crime ridden ghettos and suggests we should start grabbing guns there. Nor do they grab a person from that neighborhood and invite them onto their show to debate a gun grabber. That section of society seems to be ignored as a lost cause because those people KNOW what will happen if they approach that section of society. Law abiding people and sections of society are safe to pick on and confront because they are law abiding in the first place. Think of it like general "gang violence." Media high lights victims, then turns to police and psychologists for answers. No one is out confronting gang members though are they?
Puts us in a tough position. That treatment could change real quick, but at what cost. No one I know would want to be grouped into that "lost cause" section of the population.