Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Time for the FULL Second Amendment to be enforced, or struck from the Constitution entirely.

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 19, 2013, 11:24 p.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

1st of all slippery Slope Arguments are irrational and paranoid; controlling weapons that no one legally needs is NOT a threat to your precious gun rights — not that you people actually know the conditions of those gun rights. The Responsibilities of Gun Ownership laid out in the Second Amendment are completely ignored by the Gun Bunny crowd; 2nd of all the fact that they need to be part of a government-regulated state militia if they own guns, and that they are duty-bound to protect Americans FROM insurgency, not to take over the government if they get pissed off.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 5 years ago

That is disgusting.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

I doubt you really think so.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 5 years ago

It is because people don't like something like guns and they don't think the full Ammendment is being used then we should just write it out.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You (along with Thom Hartmann, Shooz and others) are either a complete ignoramus or evil. I go with evil.

The first clause of the 2nd Amendment is not a restrictive clause, not an 'if only' clause, but an explanatory clause. Other wise the operative clause could not be as unambiguously declarative as it is.

Further in the phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State", 'free' is the key word. It doesn't say security of the state. The 2A says that civilian ownership of firearms is necessary to preserve the freedom of a free state.

Not that you care. I suspect you are a paid advocate.

Gun Bunny, huh? You are nothing but a gunhate/constitution-hating nutter. An unAmerican, unpatriotic piece of garbage. You don't share OWS values, get lost.


[-] -3 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

you will never change their ( left wing)agenda. its what they're on here to promote.

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

I don't know who these people really are. They want it to be the left wing agenda. But to me they stink of the New World Odor.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

thats exactly what they are. odor/order

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago


learn as much as you can about the REAL numbers that prove the REAL solutions

demand a plan:


alex jones – without his straight jacket!


find your congresspeople
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


Dear ............................:

[ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasible approach. It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:

all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns

every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Annual ( fee ) back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.
Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000

The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

On the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, a maniac entered a school in China and – WITHOUT A GUN – stabbed 22 innocent children.
No teacher had a gun. No security guards had guns.
►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►.....no one died

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head. Start talking about a civic, patriotic, responsibility with having instruments exclusively designed for inflicting death and the true nature of those who desire their unregulated proliferation will bubble forth.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

pretty much. why else all the rhetoric from the same people about "their america" and the threats of civil war?

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You stink of the New World Odor.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

hardly. i oppose corporations. on the other hand you want to suck weapon manufacturer dick.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (368) 5 years ago

"Okay, so (Obama) is finally trying to ban assault rifles and high-capacity-ammo clips (Good. I‘m glad. That needs to happen.), but this totally ignores and overshadows the fact that rifles only account for 3 percent of annual gun-related-deaths in America, while it is actually Hand-Guns that should be the main issue (47 percent of all murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns) and the fact that almost-every-irresponsible-dumb-ass-and-their-momma-in-the-entire-country can purchase and own guns without any required training or psychological evaluation whatsoever." -KP

“The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias. Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you.” -Sam Harris http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

I also found this article to be quite interesting concerning the 2nd Amendment and have never even heard of this issue brought up before:

‘The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery’ http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

I found the article about the 2nd Amendment having the sole purpose or even any purpose for preserving slavery to be quite bogus. Only quotes from Patrick Henry had showed any such concern for slavery and not even as his primary concern.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (368) 5 years ago

Maybe not the sole purpose, at least for the Northern states. But in The South? You don't see how the Advantage of being Armed with Guns would help a group of racist, white-supremacist who abused and treated human-beings like animals to preserve slavery? Regardless of the article I think its fairly obvious.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

The unstated advantages of a law cannot be used to determine its intended purpose. A law's purpose can only be determined from the writings of the ones who wrote it http://occupywallst.org/forum/responsible-gun-ownership-is/#comment-899854 . As you've already pointed out, “The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias."

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (368) 5 years ago

Sam Harris said that, I was only quoting him because I thought he made an excellent point concerning the futility of using that argument as a justification for defending and maintaining the 2nd Amendment:

"If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you.”

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33475) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Batteries included? Rechargeable would be nice - hate having to buy single use triple A's

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Well, my point in supporting the argument is that it exposes the unpatriotic nature of those rejecting civic responsibility while claiming patriotism. If that civic responsibility were to be enforced as the condition for owning firearms, many of the so-called patriots would give up their firearms rather than bear a responsibility for the very issue they claim to support.

[-] 0 points by KevinPotts (368) 5 years ago

I think I see what you mean and pretty much agree. I don't see why anyone would complain about regulating something as dangerous and deadly as firearms (especially here in the US) unless they didn't give a shit about safety and Human Life to begin with. And it's exactly those types of dangerous, irresponsible people that don't need guns!

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Exactly my point.

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 5 years ago

you're correct, by the phoney injection of racism into the 2nd , they will try to get a collective guilt thing going. its so obvious that its funny.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

The SOCTUS has ruled twice private individuals can own guns. Also, ther are between 300 - 350 privately owned guns in America and an estimated 85 million gun owners.

Gun ownership is one of the most hot button issues around, maybe ranking higher than aboration. The fact is people will not give up their guns, ever. Get over it.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i don't think you get it. perhaps you need to read the national firearms act. the state can absolutely require that you purchase a stamp in order to possess a firearm and then refuse to issue said stamp. at which point you will be compelled to turn in your arms. if you don't like it there are federal officers and/or troops who would be more than happy to assist you.

[-] 0 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

I’m not familiar with having to buy a stamp for gun ownership. But I’ll take your word it’s true.

In reality, people will not register their guns, buy some type stamp or give up their guns. They simply won’t do it. Even the banning of semi-auto rifles will be largely ignored. The resolve of gun owners to not tell the government what guns they own is very strong. Fortunately, gun registration isn’t on the radar.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

gun owners really don't have a say in the matter.

[-] -1 points by bigjoe (-117) 5 years ago

What can I say. I think you're wrong. Gun owners are a strong political force.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

Not anymore. It is over.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Why is that? Is a much more massive false flag attack about to take place, set up by the Sandy Hook false flag attack? You know a massive reaction by enraged NRAer types (framed of course)? You seem very sure of yourself.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i am sure of myself because you people are insane. sandy hook and aurora where not false flags. this is not building 7.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

Ah, but 9/11 was a false flag, eh? That's letting the cat out of the bag. What's twenty something kids compared to 3000 office workers plus thousands of dead/permanently health scarred first responders and construction workers?