Former Republican SCOTUS justice calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment

If a small nuclear bullet is ever developed (just large enough to blow up a single apartment block). Will I be allowed to carry one around in my gun when I visit America.

Just a thought.

 

Complexly different culture. This is a joke not a serious discussion yet the same points are made.

 

Its outdated. The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases.

The left have now leaned this toward all people being treated to the same rights. By this portion: The Equal Protection Clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

Just like the founding father had no ideas an assault weapon like an AR would even exist, they also had no idea that there would be immigrants from all over given legal status to have legal rights, be the same as those that are illegal. I'm sure they had no idea that SOME Muslims would be declaring war on us, let alone the fact that we would be dealing with any illegal "persons". Further I can't imagine they envisioned convicted murderers rapist and known capital crimes, going 25 years before being carried out and during that time we have to treat them as "any person".

I see the left use the term"any person" being applied to EVERY PERSON. Just a simple word change can update our nations ability to be more clear.

 

You'd need more than one I'm sorry to say.

 

Only if I stay at a hotel in Detroit, assuming that I can find one that has not been set on fire. .

 

Here's a good article on what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the 2nd Amendment:
The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others

 

So you're into channeling the founding fathers now. I prefer to have the Constitution interpreted by judges with some training in the law and legal history. "Every person" doesn't make it clearer; it seems to say states can't denying everybody's rights collectively, thereby providing no individual protection for the newly liberated slaves the Amendment was passed to protect. You see, after the Civil War, the Republicans who controlled Congress didn't trust the former states of the Confederacy to respect the rights of blacks, so they drafted the Fourteenth Amendment and made readmission of the defeated rebel states to the Union conditional on their ratifying it. The "founding fathers" (George Washington et al) didn't have a reading on equal protection, because that was added to the Constitution long after their time, but by the amendment process they instituted. The Equal Protection Clause, as you say, is the basis of many landmark cases, especially in the area of civil rights--for all those awful black people, who were intended as its primary beneficiaries. Subsequent judges gave it a broad but reasonable interpretation to include non-human persons (corporations) and even (gasp) women. And, yes, aliens. If by "The Left" you mean the federal judges, I think they've done a reasonable job in applying the vague language of the Amendment in a way that protects human freedom and dignity and has given us a country to be proud of. Even bigoted ignoramuses are allowed to walk our streets and spout their bilge as the price we pay for living in a country "with liberty and justice for all." Because they are "persons", albeit sorry excuses for human beings.

 

Then let the 2nd Amendnent be handled the same way. The left certainly discusses the thinking if the forefathers when they argue the 2nd. We get to listen to the left turn this country into aa garbag can while waving their meaning of the way they think it reads Be it guns, what defines who for "everyone" and how nobody can be right if they dobt see it the way they do

The Constitution has served us pretty well for about 200 years. Yet in the last 20 years or so it's suddenly wrong?

It ain't the founding principles that have changed, it's the lack of belief of the left that they should continue to.

 

It is certainly debated in both sides for sure.

 

To be clear it depends upon who is defined as "All people". If in fact it's non Americans or felonious ones then I'll continue my trajectiry of leaving the U S.

Maybe this administration can get it defined better.

 

And you think reciting my words makes you original, your only kidding yourself.

 

Oh, please do! I'll help you pack. Where are you going?Not one of those "shithole countries". Mexico? Surely not. Canada, with pussy Trudeau? Western Europe, with all those "No go" zones and Sharia law? Or eastern Europe, maybe? Some of those have politics that might appeal to you, and they're white shitholes. I wouldn't recommend Russia. their gun laws are worse than ours.

Before you go, though, we need to clarify some things about the Equal Protection clause. Yes, "person" does include felons and aliens. But that doesn't mean they have full rights of citizenship. Convicted felons are denied the right to posses a firearm and access to federal loansm contacts, public housing and educational funds. The state rights denied to then vary state to state, but include loss of rights to vote, to serve on juries or to hold public office. Immigrants are not allowed to vote or hold public office, and since 1996, most lawfully residing immigrants are barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer. Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs - National Immigration Law Center
How is this possible under the equal protection clause? Equal protection means non-discrimination which means not making unreasonable distinctions among people. These exceptions are considered reasonable distinctions.

 

I saw a debate on CNN where they talked to some gun owners willing to change some laws. So of course they can't possibly be real gun owners but good old actors. Even though most people in the room had the typical from my cold dead hands approach nope the clever communist trick is just have a few "gun owners" be planted to argue with the real gun onwer. All of them said they voted Trump though. One women said she needed an Ar-15 because it looked " bad ass". The community seems to be more at war with itself than any outsider. And from what I have been told this is pretty common. Every small militia thinks they will save the day and distrusts anyone they do not personally know even if they claim to have the same views.

 

No you wouldn't be worth paying $15 an hour you'd demand to help me pack. You'd likely not understand how to do it, and I wouldn't want to risk you suing me for something because you don't like the work.

Many countries have politics that are better and quality of life is better yes. It all depends on ones definition of quality of life. You'd be correct in assuming that they are nothing close to what America has become. They have poor people. Those poor people have less opportunity there than in the U.S. Yet they don't mind being poor and working. Because there is no welfare system. They have to work if they want to eat. They have better healthcare than the U.S. They do not require the need to own firearms for protection due to better management of crime. Yes you'd be correct in assuming they have a different DUE PROCESS than we use here. It seems to work pretty good. Crime is dealt with pretty quickly and effectively. Great public transportation systems. Food is stupid cheap and great quality. No school shootings.

No way in hell I will share where. No way in hell we are gonna help you find them. These places are nice for a reason. If you guys figure it out, we'd be screwed again.

Well if an undocumented alien can get elected to office, like they are, its a problem. If a felon committed of murder can spend 25 years in prison demanding health care, cable TV and a humane death that doesn't cause them pain, which they are, its a problem. If that comes about by the 14th Amendment as you seem to project it should, then it needs to be revised.

And as you love to suggest that States Rights should be observed here is where the 14th doesn't seem to apply. Its the left agenda. They need these votes. I doubt you would have any objection to any of this. You (the entire left) need the votes too.

California gives immigrants here illegally unprecedented rights, benefits, protections

And lets add that we have to care for them now.

Medi-Cal Expansions for Undocumented Immigrants
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) greatly expanded insurance coverage for low-income Californians through Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Even so, about one million low-income adults and some children were ineligible because they are undocumented immigrants. For the 60 to 70 percent of undocumented immigrants who lack insurance, health care options are limited. Counties provide services to uninsured residents through indigent care programs, but without standard eligibility requirements; several counties exclude undocumented immigrants from these services. Safety net providers—predominantly community clinics and hospital emergency departments—serve patients regardless of immigration status and provide free or reduced-price care based on patient income level. These resources are essential access points to health care for uninsured, undocumented California residents, but are not equivalent to having comprehensive health insurance.

As California goes, so does much of America.

 

Your preferred sources probably don't want to give those signs the spotlight.

But one of the speakers, a Parkland student I believe, said something like "When they give that inch (regarding bump stocks), we will take a mile."

And since you asked....

 

Like this will be a shock. This is about the 20th time and it's always been about taking the guns. Very correct statement, you try and give them an inch, they want it to be a mile. With everything they want. Not just the 2nd.

Compromise for them is we get all we want or we resist it all.

 

Joe Biden denounces "prostitution of the Second Amendment" - CBS News

Joe Biden had some interesting things to say. He says that many interpretations of the amendment are pretty far off the mark.

What I get a kick out of is he seems in touch. He also made comments about voting when it comes time to vote.

My personal opinion is that the second amendment should take a backseat to our safety as a nation, as students, as employees, etc. I said earlier that I think it would be easier to change the second amendment than to repeal it entirely. But if it becomes an issue of whether we can ban a weapon we find, through science, is unsafe or not because of the second amendment, then maybe it's time to reconsider the second amendment. I'm hoping the CDC will shed some light on the issue, but when is it ever soon enough? It takes too long but to be fair I think it's the right way to go about implementing serious change. That said, I think there are some things that we can change now, without knowing anything more.

 

It's easier to place restrictions on a particular weapon, than to revise or repeal a Constitutional amendment. And I happen to agree with Buden on the 2nd. I remain in support of restricting access to some people and some weapons.

 

Money is all that matters,
When the gun does all the talking,
Because guns are worth money.
This is just another great opportunity,
For someone to make more guns and money.
Biden might as well be knitting socks, sipping tea,
Because honesty is such a lonely word,
Nobody gives a shit about anyone except themselves.​