Opinion Americans can't handle their guns. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Link (Archive)

Americans can't handle their guns. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.​

We must repeal the Second Amendment if we want this country to ever be safe again.

Whether it's killings by police, like the 60 bullets fired into Jayland Walker, or by civilians like in Highland Park, Illinois, Uvalde, Texas, or Buffalo, New York our national record on gun violence is an international embarrassment. It can't be reformed without doing away with guns entirely.

States like California and New York that have tried to set restrictive gun laws can do little when guns are trafficked in from other states. What's more – legislative attempts at restricting gun rights were recently shot down by a Supreme Court gone rogue.

We're way beyond what the framers ever had in mind for gun rights already. And for a selective originalist Supreme Court conservative majority, it's hard to justify glossing over the history behind the Second Amendment.

Much like we did away with the 18th (prohibition) when it no longer served us, it's time to do away with the archaic constitutional amendment holding Americans hostage in their own country.

It's time to say, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Second Amendment's gotta go."

The problem: Americans can't handle guns​

Americans can't handle their guns. There were a whopping 692 mass shootings in the United States last year, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which defines mass shootings as having "a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident."

In 2021, more than 45,000 Americans were killed by firearms. And while we have just over 4% of the world's population, as of 2017 we had over 40% of the world's civilian-owned guns.

There have been 2,069 school shootings in America since 1970, according to the Center for Homeland Defense and Security's Naval Postgraduate School's K-12 School Shooting Database. But after every shooting, all we see from most Republican lawmakers is idle talk about "locking doors" and the ever-popular "thoughts and prayers."

Meanwhile, other countries tighten gun laws after mass shootings, including Canada, which still has relatively high gun ownership rates but much lower gun homicide rates compared with the United States.

America's only option is to take drastic action and reform our antiquated Constitution.

The solution: Get rid of these 27 words​

27 words.

"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." We are often reminded of the last 14 words of the amendment but completely overlook the first 13. But those 13 words provide critical historical context, which our cherry-picking "originalist" Supreme Court has glossed over in favor of expanding gun rights far beyond what the Founders ever envisioned for the Bill of Rights, and at the expense of American lives.

In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, the Founders had one thing in mind: To protect the people against a standing army, specifically, the muskets of theBritish standing army of King George III. The Second and Third Amendments, meant to be read together, were about protecting the people from the tyranny of professional, full-time militaries (much like the one we have now). They were not intended to protect the people from one another. They were not intended to protect the people from AR-15-style weapons.

Our Constitution is "the world’s longest surviving written charter of government," according to the Senate's website, but it is far from immutable: "The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992."

In order to get rid of the Second Amendment we'd use Article V of the Constitution, which sets out two options: Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a congressional convention after petitions from two-thirds of the state legislatures, could propose the amendment.

I am not the only lawyer to point to the obvious solution. After 14 students and three staff were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland in 2018, none other than the late Justice John Paul Stevens called for repealing the Second Amendment in an opinion column in The New York Times.

It took five decades of campaigning for conservatives to get the constitutional right to abortion overturned in the Supreme Court. Repealing the Second Amendment may look like a long shot today, but if progressives and moderates show up in full force to vote the right people into office over the next couple of decades, nothing is impossible.
 
I skimmed this article. I guess it should surprise me that hacks get paid to write this drivel, but it really does not.

Some points, as some one else pointed out, 38 states are not ratifying this, even if you could somehow get two thirds of Congress to pass the Amendment.

Interestingly, John Derbyshire talked about amendments to the Constitution, and noted that historically they used to be more common, happening between every five to ten years. They have since become quite rare. To me this proves that the days for the republic are numbered, because for a democratic republic, in theory and in application, a number of pre-requisites need to be met. Aside from having an educated citizenry, you also need to have a cohesive politic that, if not bound by blood, language and history, more or less wants the same thing, but just disagrees on the details on how to achieve those agreed upon ends.

That is no longer the case, and with the DNC's long haul ballot stuffing scheme via the Great Replacement, whereby this country is importing many millions of brown skinned democratic larvae, the body politic will only become more fracture, more balkanized.

Also, John Paul Stevens was a horrible justice. Finally, it is ironic that the The Supreme Court she laments has gone "rogue" has simply and correctly decided that SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench or impose its policy preferences on things the constitution is silent about.

Edit: I looked up where she went to law school:



And the internet tells me:


So it is about on par with the not so esteemed Thomas M Cooley Diploma Mill. More than a few people must have a fetish for the somewhat homely, only kind pretty in a bookish way fetsih, because I cannot explain how she could have such a cushy gig. Is she even "law school pretty?"
She's Islamic, and she doesn't wear a hijab so she's a progressive, free thinking Muslim.
 
In 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, the Founders had one thing in mind: To protect the people against a standing army, specifically, the muskets of theBritish standing army of King George III.
Is that true though? I thought the right to bear arms was so that the people would not have an imbalance of power against any potentially tyrannical government, or force?
The muskets thing is such a daft argument. The right to bear arms is about equalising power - the people should have access to arms that will let them stand up to the powers that be. Then it was muskets, because that’s what the government had. Today the government tends not to use muskets. Neither do robbers and other violent criminals
 
The Second and Third Amendments, meant to be read together, were about protecting the people from the tyranny of professional, full-time militaries (much like the one we have now)
Funny how only these two have to be read together to make a point. They're all meant to be read together to show what the limits of our government are.
Repealing the Second Amendment may look like a long shot today, but if progressives and moderates show up in full force to vote the right people into office over the next couple of decades, nothing is impossible.
They don't realize that the moderates who were uncertain on guns went pro gun after the Floyd riots and they were able to see the rioters wanting to get rid of cops and leftoids wanting to disarm them
 
It took five decades of campaigning for conservatives to get the constitutional right to abortion overturned in the Supreme Court.

This dumbass clearly hasn't read the Constitution, which is inexcusable given that it's a simple Google search away. Setting any and all opinion on abortion aside, abortion is not and was not a "Constitutional Right." Roe V. Wade was simply a federally-protected law that forced the States to allow abortion, which technically violates the 10th Amendment which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...Meaning that the States should have the right to govern themselves and write their own laws. You know, kind of like how things are without Roe V. Wade?
 
It's time to say, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Second Amendment's gotta go."
“Try out a few slogans as well, see if any of them start to trend, if they do we will run with them.”
The absolute state of modern journalism.
 
So no guns for law abiding citizens.

No guns for police. Criminals can just do what they want then, if they have a gun?

What about the Secret Service?

What about Nancy Pelosi's bodyguards?

What about Rightthinking Liberal Celebrity bodyguards?

What about an endangered trans celebrity, do they get to have bodyguards with guns?(
The citizens don't get guns. They'll get the book thrown at them if they are discovered with them. And by citizens I mean the "white" ones (Euros / Asians / Hispanics). Blacks that got them illegally won't see any jail time. The SS will get guns. The elite's body guards, or people the elites care about, will get guns and look the other way when something happens. This is the future the dems want.
 
Journoswine can't handle their pens, so when will you be turning in yours? After all, the founding fathers surely never imagined anything more sophisticated than a quill and inkwell and simple presses. They would obviously be appalled at their casually irresponsible use. If you disagree, you are obviously (gosh, how could any reasonable person not see that?)a repressive fascist hatemonger who wishes violence and death upon poor wittle innocent ole me, and therefore I am fully justified to advocate for the complete nullification of any and all of your rights, up to and including having you imprisoned and/or executed for the Capital crime of heresy to my personal political orthodoxy, and I reserve the right to twerk on your grave.
 
She's Islamic, and she doesn't wear a hijab so she's a progressive, free thinking Muslim.
I don't know what her background is, but the name Carli Pierson does not suggest an Islamic background to me. She probably married some American. Even without a maiden name, Carli sounds like something immigrant parents would provide to try and assimilate. It could also be a made up name like "Lainey Molnar." She might speak Spanish (see tweet attached).

All in all she seems very mediocre. Diversity hire along with doing Kamala Harris style career climbing by fucking and sucking her way to the top with decision makers who pine fir minimally attractive, "law school pretty types" is the best answer. By the way, she has less than a thousand followers on twitter and yet is an op Ed writer for USA Today.. For regualr users, I hate the "low follower count argument" but an influential writer, even if for a rag likeUSA Today, should have more followers than she does. There are regional day time sports talk radio guy with a lot more followers than that.

This dumbass clearly hasn't read the Constitution, which is inexcusable given that it's a simple Google search away. Setting any and all opinion on abortion aside, abortion is not and was not a "Constitutional Right." Roe V. Wade was simply a federally-protected law that forced the States to allow abortion, which technically violates the 10th Amendment which states:
No, Roe v Wade like all Scotus decisions are, well, Supreme court decisions--or, to avoid a circular definition, Supreme Court rulings-- that uphold or strike down state or federal laws based on their being Constitutional.or note or being in conflict with other laws that take precedence.
 

Archivos adjuntos

  • Screenshot_20220715-144425_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20220715-144425_Chrome.jpg
    404 KB · Vistas: 17
  • 192c3c98cdef49ee977d6182ed536fde_6.jpg
    192c3c98cdef49ee977d6182ed536fde_6.jpg
    5.7 KB · Vistas: 15
  • E_RpHLzX0A82See.jpg
    E_RpHLzX0A82See.jpg
    164.5 KB · Vistas: 14
  • d4652a3b-9a52-4f13-8021-86887a0d25fb-14650705_10154144298781848_5832254814497592850_n.jpg
    d4652a3b-9a52-4f13-8021-86887a0d25fb-14650705_10154144298781848_5832254814497592850_n.jpg
    20.2 KB · Vistas: 16
All in all she seems very mediocre. Diversity hire along with doing Kamala Harris style career climbing by fucking and sucking her way to the top with decision makers who pine fir minimally attractive, "law school pretty types" is the best answer. By the way, she has less than a thousand followers on twitter and yet is an op Ed writer for USA Today.. For regualr users, I hate the "low follower count argument" but an influential writer, even if for a rag likeUSA Today, should have more followers than she does. There are regional day time sports talk radio guy with a lot more followers than that.

Its because she isn't someone chooses to read. If someone reads her stories, they don't think wow that's great I want to see more of what she has, because they care about her publication and the narrative, not anything unique she brings to the table. She is there to repeat the party slogan, and is out the second she deviates. She doesn't make enough to live in a metro apartment, because there is no demand for her work and endless supply of replacement bugmen that will take her position if she is canceled.

Funny enough, if she had the choice between making double and publishing on a non establishment website, she wouldn't because she doesn't believe in merit, only institutional value. She legitimately thinks being part of USA Today and being establishment is more important than merit or making money.

Pray to God that she doesn't end up running your HOA one day.
 
I've already posted why we are having articles like this. To detract from all of the bad things that are happening now that was caused by the leftist agenda.

More and more it looks like the left are going to lose both house and senate coming this November.
Leftists will do anything, including eating their young to get their agenda across.

Yup! Look at the Bitch. Let send her to Iran and see how well she will survive with her ideology.
 
More importantly, the second amendment being repealed wouldn't prevent the police from using guns. I don't know where they get that idea.
I suspect her logic is 'if the american people don't have legal access to guns then the cops don't need to be armed to deal with criminals'

Its retarded shit for brains logic and doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, but shes a journo
 
"The rest, you'll have to take. You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF, the National Guard - all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations - to go door-to-door through 3.8 million square miles of this country, and take them by force."
Why do anti-gun people hate dogs so much?
Bitch, we know how to safely and legally handle guns better than you and Bloomberg's bought-out trollops ever will. You are not in any position to lecture me on my rights.
It's projection. Deep down, the anti-2A people know their crazy, impulsive, undisciplined asses shouldn't be trusted with a gun. Therefore, no one should be trusted with a gun. Because, like all screeching leftist activists, they're ridiculously arrogant. More often than not, they're just downright narcissistic. We're all very well aware of this here. It's one of the main traits that makes a lolcow a lolcow.

So, their attitude is, "If I can't handle a gun, surely some stupid hick farmer has no idea how to handle one either! As a matter of fact, if I was forced to handle a gun, I could do it way better than that idiotic, ignorant, bigoted Trumper!"

I wrote a post about this mindset a while ago, over in the Canadian truckers thread, except it was about truck drivers, obviously. I went into how leftist bugmen always think blue-collar jobs are the easiest shit in the world, like you can pick any random person off the street, and they can do that job with zero training. That's just how easy it is.

The way Redditors and Twitter users talked about the truckers, it's seemed their impression was that the truck driver shows up, drives to truck to its destination, and that's it. So, of course anyone could do it, meaning those truckers don't deserve respect, not for such a simple job.

The working class they claim to be fighting for is only ever looked down upon with contempt and a smug smirk.

It's the same conceited attitude on display here, just flipped around for gun control. For truckers, the job is so simple, anyone can do it. For gun control, everyone is so emotionally incontinent that guns should be banned all together. At the core, it's just another form of projection.
 
I wrote a post about this mindset a while ago, over in the Canadian truckers thread, except it was about truck drivers, obviously. I went into how leftist bugmen always think blue-collar jobs are the easiest shit in the world, like you can pick any random person off the street, and they can do that job with zero training. That's just how easy it is.

The way Redditors and Twitter users talked about the truckers, it's seemed their impression was that the truck driver shows up, drives to truck to its destination, and that's it. So, of course anyone could do it, meaning those truckers don't deserve respect, not for such a simple job.

The working class they claim to be fighting for is only ever looked down upon with contempt and a smug smirk.
So this?
 
Journoswine can't handle their pens, so when will you be turning in yours? After all, the founding fathers surely never imagined anything more sophisticated than a quill and inkwell and simple presses. They would obviously be appalled at their casually irresponsible use. If you disagree, you are obviously (gosh, how could any reasonable person not see that?)a repressive fascist hatemonger who wishes violence and death upon poor wittle innocent ole me, and therefore I am fully justified to advocate for the complete nullification of any and all of your rights, up to and including having you imprisoned and/or executed for the Capital crime of heresy to my personal political orthodoxy, and I reserve the right to twerk on your grave.
In your case and the case of anyone who speaks against them, this is what politicians and their journoslime attack dogs actually believe.

And I still haven't gotten that five minutes of my life back from reading that garbage.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo